Airloom — run `run_20260714_015948`

80 generation(s) · 1061 candidates (755 valid) · regenerated 14:56:39

every candidate the run has flown, in evaluation order. Gray dots are evaluated designs — height is the aggregate energy score in Wh/km across all scenarios, lower is better. The black step line tracks the best so far, stepping down at each labeled improvement. Red ×’s on the ∞ row are invalid designs that failed a check and never flew. Click any black improvement dot to jump to that candidate’s detail card below.

candidatecandidate
One evaluated design, drawn at its aggregate energy score across all scenarios. Lower is better.off scaleoff scale
A valid but far-off candidate above the 95th-percentile cap, drawn hollow at the top edge so one terrible design does not squash the interesting region.best so farbest so far
Step line tracking the lowest energy score reached so far; each black dot is an improvement. Click one to jump to that candidate’s detail card.×invalid (design fail)invalid (design fail)
Failed a structural or geometric check and never flew the scenarios, so it has no finite score — plotted on the ∞ row.generationgeneration
Alternating shaded bands group the candidates of each generation (labeled g0, g1, … below the axis); hover a band for its candidate count.claude-designedclaude-designed
A purple halo marks candidates proposed by the Claude designer; a light purple generation band means Claude had input that generation (designer round).gpivot generationpivot generation
Patience ran out on a plateau: this generation was bred from far-apart parents to re-diversify the pool.

the game board

bolted down — the fixed kit

motors	4× 2806-class, ≤22,000 rpm, ≤500 W each
props	7×4 3-blade (MA GF 7×4 measured tables)
battery	6S1P 21700 Li-Ion, 4.2 Ah, 470 g
pack limits	0.15 Ω sag, ≤45 A (≈821 W ceiling)
electronics	30.5 mm FC/ESC stack (needs ≥20 mm gap), camera, VTX, ELRS, GPS
non-frame mass	783 g

hard constraints (fitness = ∞, no flight)

FC/ESC stack must fit the deck gap
arm root tongues may not collide on the main plate
each tongue’s bolt pair must land on plate material
rotor–rotor / rotor–frame clearance ≥ 5 mm, prop disks vs deck & battery checked in 3D
arm stress, tip deflection & 1P resonance (×1.5 safety)
≤10% of the mission thrust-limited (rotor, motor or pack)

the levers — 14 genes

	min	seed	max
arm length	×0.75	×1.00	×1.35
arm width	×0.55	×1.00	×1.40
arm waist	×0.40	×1.00	×1.30
arm thickness (mm)	2	6	9
tip thickness	×0.50	×1.00	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00	×0.00	×0.60
front sweep	30°	31°	52°
rear sweep	34°	36°	62°
plate length	×0.85	×1.00	×1.30
plate width	×0.85	×1.00	×1.25
deck gap (mm)	20	30	45
battery wedge	0°	2°	15°
plate thickness	×0.50	×1.00	×1.60
material	cf_plate … asa (6 materials)

×1.00 on every scale gene = the real Source One V6 7in DC, measured from the official plate drawings; the search deforms those real outlines, never free-form shapes.

the weather — every candidate flies all of it

calm warm	25 C, no wind, no rain (baseline / sanity case)
cold headwind	5 C, 8 m/s from north, moderate Dryden turbulence
storm	5 C, 8 m/s north, severe turbulence, 25 mm/h rain
crosswind	15 C, 10 m/s pure crosswind from east, moderate turbulence
gusty light	10 C, 4 m/s from northwest, severe gusts (control effort & loads)
hot thin	35 C, density altitude 1500 m (thin air), light wind

one mission: 4 km out-and-back at 12 m/s, 30 m AGL. Fixed gust seeds — every candidate flies identical turbulence, so score differences are frame differences. Fitness = mean Wh/km + 0.5 × worst scenario.

the process

the loop

tournament selection (k = 3) with SBX crossover and decaying Gaussian mutation; the top 2 carry over unchanged, random immigrants keep diversity, and a stalled search pivots to crosses with its most genetically distant decent ancestors. Every 3 generations — and at every pivot — a headless Claude reads the elites’ telemetry, the failure histogram and its own past proposals, and injects design hypotheses of its own (violet in the family tree); after each generation it writes the lab-notebook notes on every card. Every candidate ever built is archived here, failures included.

the physics

each candidate flies all six scenarios at 100 Hz: measured UIUC propeller tables, Dryden gusts with per-scenario fixed seeds (every frame sees identical weather), a battery that sags under load and caps deliverable power, and drag priced from the frame’s actual rasterized silhouettes with CFD-calibrated coefficients — 12 OpenFOAM RANS cases measured the handbook buildup roughly 2× too pessimistic at cruise tilt and pinned the interference between parts (−27 % at 20°). The corrected model reproduces the measured drag to ±3 %.

the audit

before a leaderboard is trusted, the top frames are re-flown under perturbed model assumptions (±30 % drag coefficients, ±10 % rotor tables, altered rain physics); the current ordering survives every perturbation with rank correlation ≥ 0.95 and no champion change. Champions then face a refined structural check — stress concentrations at bolt holes and cutouts, as-printed strength knockdowns — and ship with a bench print-and-test protocol, because simulation ends where a vise begins.

generation 79

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 0 design(s) injected, 6 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	5
crossovers (tournament parents)	6
pivot crosses (far parent)	5

mutation σ 0.030 of gene range
pivot σ 0.048 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 79 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.55..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.4..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.0025..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters (the ROOT thickness)
- tip_thickness_scale: 0.5..1.0 — mid-shaft thickness dip as a fraction of root thickness (1.0 = uniform, no dip)
- arm_cutout_scale: 0.0..0.6 — 3 lightening holes along the shaft, radius as a fraction of the local width there (0 = none)
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.5..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257, g21 6.257, g22 6.172, g23 6.165, g24 6.144, g25 6.144, g26 6.144, g27 6.144, g28 6.144, g29 6.144, g30 6.144, g31 6.144, g32 6.144, g33 6.144, g34 6.144, g35 6.144, g36 6.113, g37 6.113, g38 6.113, g39 6.051, g40 6.048, g41 6.045, g42 6.038, g43 6.035, g44 6.027, g45 6.023, g46 6.023, g47 6.020, g48 6.019, g49 5.996, g50 5.996, g51 5.996, g52 5.992, g53 5.986, g54 5.980, g55 5.972, g56 5.972, g57 5.972, g58 5.964, g59 5.889, g60 5.872, g61 5.855, g62 5.853, g63 5.851, g64 5.851, g65 5.839, g66 5.839, g67 5.830, g68 5.830, g69 5.823, g70 5.810, g71 5.806, g72 5.787, g73 5.786, g74 5.775, g75 5.769, g76 5.768, g77 5.767, g78 5.767 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 19 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 5.767 Wh/km-agg, frame 56 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7773, "arm_width_scale": 0.8434, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4441, "arm_thickness": 0.0025, "tip_thickness_scale": 1.0, "arm_cutout_scale": 0.0, "front_sweep_deg": 37.3277, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.6323, "plate_length_scale": 0.9312, "plate_width_scale": 1.0024, "deck_gap": 0.0315, "battery_wedge_deg": 1.0026, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.6311, "material": 0.0685} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.06, "cold_headwind": 3.65, "crosswind": 3.53, "gusty_light": 3.41, "hot_thin": 3.26, "storm": 4.42}
fitness 5.767 Wh/km-agg, frame 56 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7773, "arm_width_scale": 0.8441, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4558, "arm_thickness": 0.0025, "tip_thickness_scale": 0.9836, "arm_cutout_scale": 0.0, "front_sweep_deg": 37.2529, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.7433, "plate_length_scale": 0.932, "plate_width_scale": 1.0139, "deck_gap": 0.0298, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.9954, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.6311, "material": 0.0394} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.06, "cold_headwind": 3.65, "crosswind": 3.53, "gusty_light": 3.41, "hot_thin": 3.26, "storm": 4.42}
fitness 5.768 Wh/km-agg, frame 55 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7686, "arm_width_scale": 0.8821, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4315, "arm_thickness": 0.0025, "tip_thickness_scale": 0.9999, "arm_cutout_scale": 0.0, "front_sweep_deg": 36.7532, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.7506, "plate_length_scale": 0.9617, "plate_width_scale": 1.0024, "deck_gap": 0.0315, "battery_wedge_deg": 1.6112, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.6001, "material": 0.0665} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.06, "cold_headwind": 3.65, "crosswind": 3.53, "gusty_light": 3.41, "hot_thin": 3.26, "storm": 4.42}
fitness 5.768 Wh/km-agg, frame 55 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7689, "arm_width_scale": 0.8821, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4311, "arm_thickness": 0.0025, "tip_thickness_scale": 1.0, "arm_cutout_scale": 0.0, "front_sweep_deg": 36.741, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.7459, "plate_length_scale": 0.9617, "plate_width_scale": 1.0024, "deck_gap": 0.0315, "battery_wedge_deg": 1.6112, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.6002, "material": 0.0656} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.06, "cold_headwind": 3.65, "crosswind": 3.53, "gusty_light": 3.41, "hot_thin": 3.26, "storm": 4.43}
fitness 5.769 Wh/km-agg, frame 55 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.777, "arm_width_scale": 0.8447, "arm_waist_scale": 0.447, "arm_thickness": 0.0025, "tip_thickness_scale": 1.0, "arm_cutout_scale": 0.0, "front_sweep_deg": 37.3048, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.7407, "plate_length_scale": 0.9333, "plate_width_scale": 1.0026, "deck_gap": 0.0323, "battery_wedge_deg": 1.016, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.6003, "material": 0.0684} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.06, "cold_headwind": 3.65, "crosswind": 3.53, "gusty_light": 3.41, "hot_thin": 3.26, "storm": 4.42}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g60 `11a813e1` fitness 5.926 Wh/km-agg — was: Battery_wedge_deg has sat almost untouched (0.23-0.35 of a 0-15 range) and every prior clean wedge attempt was bundled with a weaker arm or run on pa12_cf, never on the actual current cf_plate champion recipe; this holds the winning geometry exactly and pushes wedge to a moderate 6deg to isolate whether reduced frontal area beats the added CG-shift cost on the family that is actually winning.
- g60 `ac35c1dc` fitness 6.019 Wh/km-agg — was: Width cuts to 0.60-0.62 always lost on printed materials and the one aggressive width+waist combo on pa12_cf failed tip deflection, but that confound was never isolated on cf_plate, which has a strictly better stiffness-to-weight ratio; this cuts width to 0.65 while relieving the taper (waist 0.60) and adding a modest thickness bump for margin, testing whether carbon alone can survive the narrow-a
- g63 `0a85bf0a` fitness 5.911 Wh/km-agg — was: if cutout holes and a mid-shaft taper each cut mass in isolation, combining mild versions of both on the winning geometry should compound the hot_thin/mass gain further than either alone, so this pairs cutout_scale 0.15 with tip_thickness_scale 0.85 (both moderate, not pushed toward their individual extremes) plus a relieved waist (0.55) and a thickness bump (0.0029) specifically to dodge the flag
- g63 `58619732` fitness 5.916 Wh/km-agg — was: arm_cutout_scale has sat at 0.0 through the entire cf_plate elite lineage despite carbon's superior stiffness-to-weight ratio giving it the most margin to absorb stress risers, so this adds three moderate lightening holes (0.28, safely below the ~0.4 stress-concentration danger zone) to the exact winning short-arm geometry with a small thickness bump (0.0026->0.0030) for margin, leaving the taper 
- g63 `6a61b37c` fitness 5.972 Wh/km-agg — was: tip_thickness_scale has also sat frozen at 1.0 (no mid-shaft dip) through the entire elite lineage even though bending stress is lowest at mid-shaft, so this pushes it to 0.62 to trim mass where it costs least structurally, compensates with a thicker root (0.0026->0.0032) for margin at the tongue/motor-mount stations, and relieves the waist (0.4725->0.65) so the narrowing and thinning levers don't
- g65 `40a79371` fitness 6.415 Wh/km-agg — was: Every current elite and nearly every prior test relies on the same stiffening trick -- aggressive mid-shaft taper (waist ~0.47-0.60) on a near-floor-thickness shaft -- and every attempt to relax that taper without heavy compensation has failed tip deflection, so this abandons taper entirely (waist 0.95, effectively untapered) and instead buys stiffness from a wider, thicker 'stout beam' cross-sect
- g65 `e8accf07` fitness 6.513 Wh/km-agg — was: The first failure was driven by arm length outgrowing the plate, not sweep (sweep matched the elite's near-stock values) -- this keeps the exact long-arm/lower-disk-loading concept but grows plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale further (to 1.18/1.15, beyond the prior 1.05/1.03) to match arm_length_scale's own offset from stock, not just the sweep offset, so the tongue bolts stay seated.
- g66 `92aee523` fitness 5.904 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior width cut spent its compensation budget on arm thickness or taper and lost, but plate_thickness_scale has 0.5-1.6 of headroom that was only ever tested paired with a weaker pa12_cf arm; this cuts width more aggressively (0.92->0.78) than any surviving test while relieving the taper and instead buying the missing stiffness margin from a real plate_thickness_scale bump (0.66->0.85) on th
- g69 `001d6d39` fitness 5.870 Wh/km-agg — was: The plate-width shrink failed on web thickness at 0.95, so this replaces it with an orthogonal mass-cut on the exact winning geometry -- moderate lightening holes (cutout 0.18, safely below the ~0.4 stress-riser zone) with a small thickness bump for margin -- while plates stay pinned at the elite's proven 0.9425/0.9959.
- g69 `099a8e46` fitness 5.874 Wh/km-agg — was: The prior front-sweep cut to 33deg overlapped rotor disks because the short/wide arm gave no extra radial clearance, so this takes a smaller sweep step (34.5deg) and pairs it with a longer arm (0.85 scale) plus grown plate scales (0.98/1.02) for the tip clearance and tongue-bolt seating that were missing before.
- g69 `eedcf261` fitness 5.971 Wh/km-agg — was: cf_plate's plate_thickness_scale has huge untouched headroom (elite sits at 0.66 of a 1.6 cap) and has never been used to fund BOTH mass-cutting arm levers at once, so this bumps plate_thickness_scale to 1.05 to buy structural margin for a real cutout (0.32) plus a real mid-shaft taper (tip_thickness_scale 0.70) simultaneously, relieving waist to 0.65 so the taper/holes/narrowing don't stack in th
- g72 `1f59e66f` fitness 5.787 Wh/km-agg — was: The only deck_gap cut ever tried (0.027) jumped straight past the real boundary and failed on rotor/deck clearance, leaving the whole 0.027-0.037 band unsampled, so this tests a moderate 0.032 on the unchanged winning geometry to find real standoff-mass savings without repeating the known failure point.
- g72 `7abd5ff3` fitness 6.030 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past cutout/taper combo stacked holes into an already-narrowed waist and lost, so this instead relieves the waist to near-neutral (0.95) and widens the root slightly (1.05) to give the shaft full cross-section margin, letting three moderate lightening holes (0.22) do the mass-cutting work in isolation without compounding stress concentration with a taper.
- g72 `c1f4b5cb` fitness 5.854 Wh/km-agg — was: Battery_wedge_deg has only ever been isolated-tested at 6deg on an older, weaker geometry, leaving the 6-15deg band untouched on the actual current champion recipe, so this pushes wedge to 9.5deg on the unchanged winning geometry to see if cutting frontal area for cold_headwind/crosswind now outweighs the CG-shift cost on the family that's actually winning.
- g75 `318f5b17` fitness 5.770 Wh/km-agg — was: Battery_wedge_deg has only ever been pushed upward from the elite's near-zero value (6deg, 9.5deg), both losing to the CG-shift cost, but the opposite direction -- a fully flat battery -- has never been isolated on the actual winning geometry, so this zeroes wedge while holding every other gene exactly at the elite's values to test whether the small existing tilt is itself a net cost rather than a
- g75 `a979213f` fitness 5.909 Wh/km-agg — was: Arm_thickness has sat pinned at the absolute floor (0.0025) through the entire elite lineage and every attempt to touch it was bundled with waist or width changes that failed for unrelated reasons, so this isolates a modest stiffness bump (0.0025->0.0033) with every other gene held exactly at elite values, testing whether the added storm-scenario stiffness margin outweighs its small mass/hot_thin 
- g75 `d63f41b2` fitness 5.822 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past cutout test confounded the mass cut by relieving the waist taper (0.55-0.65) as compensation, so the true effect of holes on the actual winning aggressive-taper geometry (waist 0.4452) has never been isolated; this adds a mild cutout (0.12, well below the ~0.4 stress-riser zone) with only a token thickness bump (0.0028) for margin, holding waist, width, sweeps, plates and everything els
- g78 `052f1fa9` fitness 6.163 Wh/km-agg — was: The original wide-sweep pivot failed on rotor tip clearance because a short 0.8-scale arm combined with front sweep pushed to 49deg (17.6deg off stock) left too little radial spacing between prop disks; this fixes it by lengthening the arm to 1.15 for real radial clearance and pulling front sweep back to 40deg (rear to 40deg) so both sweeps sit close to stock while plate scales grow to keep the to
- g78 `69d334ab` fitness 6.124 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite across the last 18 generations has frozen front/rear sweep within a ~1deg band near 37/44deg and every non-sweep lever (waist, width, thickness, cutout, tip-taper, wedge, deck_gap-down) has already been isolated and lost, so this abandons the frozen near-stock sweep entirely for a genuinely wide symmetric DeadCat splay (46/55deg, deep into unsampled territory) with plate_length/width_s
- g78 `6c374225` fitness 5.812 Wh/km-agg — was: Every historical deck_gap experiment (0.027 failed on rotor/deck clearance, 0.032 tested worse at 5.787) only ever probed downward from the elite's 0.0315, leaving the entire upper half of the 0.02-0.045 range genuinely untested despite the elite geometry never actually resting against that bound's failure mode in that direction, so this holds the exact current champion recipe fixed and pushes dec

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 17, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 34, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 17, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 6, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 38, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 27, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 42, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 10, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 11, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.01 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.20 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.60 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.19 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.15 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.52 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pla_plus)": 3, "arm overstressed (pet_cf)": 3, "arm overstressed (asa)": 2, "arm overstressed (petg)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 19 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 designs. MOST should be PIVOTAL: abandon that shared trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space (a pivot that lands near the elites is usually a wasted round). BUT check first whether the elites are sitting short of a GENE BOUND (including one that was recently widened) rather than short of a hard constraint or a worse-material tradeoff — that is unexploited headroom, not a dead local optimum, and abandoning it wastes a proposal on a hypothesis (a different material, a different shape family) that the run's own history may already show loses on mass. When you find that headroom, spend ONE of your 3 proposals aggressively pushing the CURRENT winning family further into it instead of discarding it. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates); tip_thickness_scale below 1.0 thins the MIDDLE of the shaft, not the tip itself (full thickness stays at the tongue and the motor mount, a bump-shaped dip in between) -- the structural check now covers the whole shaft station-by-station, so a design can fail on a mid-shaft station even when the root looks fine; and arm_cutout_scale places 3 lightening holes along the shaft sized off the LOCAL width there -- values above ~0.4 usually start failing on stress concentration at the holes, especially stacked with a low tip_thickness_scale in the same region.

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "tip_thickness_scale": <float>, "arm_cutout_scale": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 6b831ee1 — rejected pre-flight (plates too thin for cf_plate (1.1 < 1.2 mm)) — Genome bounds were widened downward today and the elite family already jumped past the OLD plate_thickness_scale floor (0.7) to sit at 0.60-0.63, but no isolated test has pushed it toward the NEW floor (0.5) on the untouched winning geometry, so this holds every other gene exactly at the top elite's values and drops plate_thickness_scale to 0.53 to claim that unexploited headroom.
candidate cd41b0c7 — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Every elite for 19 generations buys its stiffness-per-mass from an aggressive mid-shaft taper on a floor-thickness shaft, and the one time taper was abandoned for a stout uniform beam it was bundled with a LONG arm and lost badly (6.415), so this tests the opposite combination never tried: keep the arm at its true floor length (0.75, minimum bending moment) but drop the taper entirely (waist 1.0,
candidate cec66fda — rejected pre-flight (plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)) — Every current elite shares a moderate sweep growth (37/44 vs the real V6's stock 31.4/36.0) paired with plate scales grown to accommodate it, but that combination has never been reverted to pure stock sweep with the freed plate-scale budget reclaimed as mass savings instead, so this holds the winning arm cross-section exactly and pulls both sweeps back to true stock while trimming plate_length_sca
candidate 55538b93 — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — arm_length_scale has sat within ~3.7% of its 0.75 floor through the entire elite lineage while every other mass-cutting lever (thickness, cutout, tip-taper) already converged onto its own hard boundary, so this holds the exact winning recipe and drops arm_length_scale to the literal minimum to claim the one remaining unexploited direct mass/moment reduction, isolated from every prior confounded le
candidate a44a8afe — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — Every prior long-arm/low-disk-loading attempt (g65 e8accf07, g69 099a8e46, g78 052f1fa9) lost because it bundled the length increase with an under-compensated or unrelieved beam, so this abandons the short-arm family deliberately -- arm_length_scale pushed to 1.15 with width neutralized to 1.0, waist relieved to 0.75, and a real thickness margin (0.0032) to survive the longer beam's higher bending
candidate c60b0abd — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — The one wide-sweep pivot that actually survived structurally (g78 69d334ab, 46/55deg) confounded the sweep change with an abandoned taper and lost, so this isolates sweep alone -- keeping the exact proven light structure (short arm, narrow waist, floor thickness, uniform tip) but pushing front/rear sweep further out (43/50deg) than the frozen elite band, with plate_length/width_scale grown to 1.05

4553a646ccc2

5.763 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.65
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.26
storm	4.42

a47fba69d402

5.764 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.65
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.26
storm	4.42

222e0e2cc59f

5.767 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.65
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.26
storm	4.42

faeb6f8edb27

5.767 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.65
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.26
storm	4.42

81837e8357bb

5.767 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.65
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.26
storm	4.42

6c1c1963d383

5.768 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.65
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.26
storm	4.43

520b5f07c877

5.769 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.65
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.26
storm	4.43

9e1da466f3c7

5.770 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.65
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.27
storm	4.43

ec2d7efaa042

5.776 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.66
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.27
storm	4.43

4a7c18fe3701

5.778 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.66
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.27
storm	4.43

b517126ec88f

5.781 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.07
cold_headwind	3.66
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.42
hot_thin	3.27
storm	4.43

17cd9b8ac906

5.784 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.07
cold_headwind	3.66
crosswind	3.54
gusty_light	3.42
hot_thin	3.27
storm	4.44

270031bd6fe0

5.787 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.07
cold_headwind	3.67
crosswind	3.54
gusty_light	3.42
hot_thin	3.27
storm	4.44

fcc07cdc62a1

5.790 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.07
cold_headwind	3.67
crosswind	3.54
gusty_light	3.42
hot_thin	3.27
storm	4.44

1c13cea636c2

5.793 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.07
cold_headwind	3.67
crosswind	3.54
gusty_light	3.42
hot_thin	3.27
storm	4.44

89f62176691e

5.843 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.70
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.48

generation 78

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 3 design(s) injected, 1 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	4
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	3
mutants (single parent)	1
pivot crosses (far parent)	5

mutation σ 0.030 of gene range
pivot σ 0.048 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 78 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.55..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.4..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.0025..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters (the ROOT thickness)
- tip_thickness_scale: 0.5..1.0 — mid-shaft thickness dip as a fraction of root thickness (1.0 = uniform, no dip)
- arm_cutout_scale: 0.0..0.6 — 3 lightening holes along the shaft, radius as a fraction of the local width there (0 = none)
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.5..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257, g21 6.257, g22 6.172, g23 6.165, g24 6.144, g25 6.144, g26 6.144, g27 6.144, g28 6.144, g29 6.144, g30 6.144, g31 6.144, g32 6.144, g33 6.144, g34 6.144, g35 6.144, g36 6.113, g37 6.113, g38 6.113, g39 6.051, g40 6.048, g41 6.045, g42 6.038, g43 6.035, g44 6.027, g45 6.023, g46 6.023, g47 6.020, g48 6.019, g49 5.996, g50 5.996, g51 5.996, g52 5.992, g53 5.986, g54 5.980, g55 5.972, g56 5.972, g57 5.972, g58 5.964, g59 5.889, g60 5.872, g61 5.855, g62 5.853, g63 5.851, g64 5.851, g65 5.839, g66 5.839, g67 5.830, g68 5.830, g69 5.823, g70 5.810, g71 5.806, g72 5.787, g73 5.786, g74 5.775, g75 5.769, g76 5.768, g77 5.767 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 18 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 5.767 Wh/km-agg, frame 56 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7773, "arm_width_scale": 0.8434, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4441, "arm_thickness": 0.0025, "tip_thickness_scale": 1.0, "arm_cutout_scale": 0.0, "front_sweep_deg": 37.3277, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.6323, "plate_length_scale": 0.9312, "plate_width_scale": 1.0024, "deck_gap": 0.0315, "battery_wedge_deg": 1.0026, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.6311, "material": 0.0685} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.06, "cold_headwind": 3.65, "crosswind": 3.53, "gusty_light": 3.41, "hot_thin": 3.26, "storm": 4.42}
fitness 5.767 Wh/km-agg, frame 56 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7773, "arm_width_scale": 0.8441, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4558, "arm_thickness": 0.0025, "tip_thickness_scale": 0.9836, "arm_cutout_scale": 0.0, "front_sweep_deg": 37.2529, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.7433, "plate_length_scale": 0.932, "plate_width_scale": 1.0139, "deck_gap": 0.0298, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.9954, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.6311, "material": 0.0394} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.06, "cold_headwind": 3.65, "crosswind": 3.53, "gusty_light": 3.41, "hot_thin": 3.26, "storm": 4.42}
fitness 5.768 Wh/km-agg, frame 55 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7689, "arm_width_scale": 0.8821, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4311, "arm_thickness": 0.0025, "tip_thickness_scale": 1.0, "arm_cutout_scale": 0.0, "front_sweep_deg": 36.741, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.7459, "plate_length_scale": 0.9617, "plate_width_scale": 1.0024, "deck_gap": 0.0315, "battery_wedge_deg": 1.6112, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.6002, "material": 0.0656} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.06, "cold_headwind": 3.65, "crosswind": 3.53, "gusty_light": 3.41, "hot_thin": 3.26, "storm": 4.43}
fitness 5.769 Wh/km-agg, frame 55 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.777, "arm_width_scale": 0.8447, "arm_waist_scale": 0.447, "arm_thickness": 0.0025, "tip_thickness_scale": 1.0, "arm_cutout_scale": 0.0, "front_sweep_deg": 37.3048, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.7407, "plate_length_scale": 0.9333, "plate_width_scale": 1.0026, "deck_gap": 0.0323, "battery_wedge_deg": 1.016, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.6003, "material": 0.0684} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.06, "cold_headwind": 3.65, "crosswind": 3.53, "gusty_light": 3.41, "hot_thin": 3.26, "storm": 4.42}
fitness 5.769 Wh/km-agg, frame 56 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7773, "arm_width_scale": 0.8447, "arm_waist_scale": 0.447, "arm_thickness": 0.0025, "tip_thickness_scale": 1.0, "arm_cutout_scale": 0.0, "front_sweep_deg": 37.325, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.7416, "plate_length_scale": 0.9311, "plate_width_scale": 1.0026, "deck_gap": 0.0315, "battery_wedge_deg": 1.016, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.6311, "material": 0.0685} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.06, "cold_headwind": 3.65, "crosswind": 3.53, "gusty_light": 3.41, "hot_thin": 3.27, "storm": 4.43}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g59 `939e58c1` fitness 5.889 Wh/km-agg — was: The rejected carbon-plate design was sound except plate_thickness_scale 0.55 produced 1.1mm webs against carbon's 1.2mm floor, so this raises plate_thickness_scale to 0.65 (real margin above the failing point) while holding every other gene -- including the untested low-taper arm and near-stock sweep -- exactly as designed.
- g59 `acb48776` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pet_cf)) — was: PET-CF has only ever been flown bundled with long arms (g51 1.05 scale, g53 1.05 scale), both of which lost by 0.6-0.7 Wh/km-agg and left material itself unjudged, exactly the confound that cf_plate isolation cleared in g53; this transplants the unchanged winning short-arm pa12_cf recipe onto pet_cf (material 0.40) with plate_thickness_scale held at the elite's already-compliant 0.8238, testing pe
- g59 `e584eb50` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: Every past width change moved only one direction (down, to 0.60-0.62) and always lost 0.19 Wh/km-agg, while the two attempts to raise width instead confounded it with an untapered waist and extreme 1.2 scale and failed on tip deflection -- this isolates a moderate width increase (0.92, well short of that failed 1.2 extreme) with the elite's own proven taper (waist 0.54) unchanged, using the added 
- g60 `11a813e1` fitness 5.926 Wh/km-agg — was: Battery_wedge_deg has sat almost untouched (0.23-0.35 of a 0-15 range) and every prior clean wedge attempt was bundled with a weaker arm or run on pa12_cf, never on the actual current cf_plate champion recipe; this holds the winning geometry exactly and pushes wedge to a moderate 6deg to isolate whether reduced frontal area beats the added CG-shift cost on the family that is actually winning.
- g60 `ac35c1dc` fitness 6.019 Wh/km-agg — was: Width cuts to 0.60-0.62 always lost on printed materials and the one aggressive width+waist combo on pa12_cf failed tip deflection, but that confound was never isolated on cf_plate, which has a strictly better stiffness-to-weight ratio; this cuts width to 0.65 while relieving the taper (waist 0.60) and adding a modest thickness bump for margin, testing whether carbon alone can survive the narrow-a
- g63 `0a85bf0a` fitness 5.911 Wh/km-agg — was: if cutout holes and a mid-shaft taper each cut mass in isolation, combining mild versions of both on the winning geometry should compound the hot_thin/mass gain further than either alone, so this pairs cutout_scale 0.15 with tip_thickness_scale 0.85 (both moderate, not pushed toward their individual extremes) plus a relieved waist (0.55) and a thickness bump (0.0029) specifically to dodge the flag
- g63 `58619732` fitness 5.916 Wh/km-agg — was: arm_cutout_scale has sat at 0.0 through the entire cf_plate elite lineage despite carbon's superior stiffness-to-weight ratio giving it the most margin to absorb stress risers, so this adds three moderate lightening holes (0.28, safely below the ~0.4 stress-concentration danger zone) to the exact winning short-arm geometry with a small thickness bump (0.0026->0.0030) for margin, leaving the taper 
- g63 `6a61b37c` fitness 5.972 Wh/km-agg — was: tip_thickness_scale has also sat frozen at 1.0 (no mid-shaft dip) through the entire elite lineage even though bending stress is lowest at mid-shaft, so this pushes it to 0.62 to trim mass where it costs least structurally, compensates with a thicker root (0.0026->0.0032) for margin at the tongue/motor-mount stations, and relieves the waist (0.4725->0.65) so the narrowing and thinning levers don't
- g65 `40a79371` fitness 6.415 Wh/km-agg — was: Every current elite and nearly every prior test relies on the same stiffening trick -- aggressive mid-shaft taper (waist ~0.47-0.60) on a near-floor-thickness shaft -- and every attempt to relax that taper without heavy compensation has failed tip deflection, so this abandons taper entirely (waist 0.95, effectively untapered) and instead buys stiffness from a wider, thicker 'stout beam' cross-sect
- g65 `e8accf07` fitness 6.513 Wh/km-agg — was: The first failure was driven by arm length outgrowing the plate, not sweep (sweep matched the elite's near-stock values) -- this keeps the exact long-arm/lower-disk-loading concept but grows plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale further (to 1.18/1.15, beyond the prior 1.05/1.03) to match arm_length_scale's own offset from stock, not just the sweep offset, so the tongue bolts stay seated.
- g66 `92aee523` fitness 5.904 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior width cut spent its compensation budget on arm thickness or taper and lost, but plate_thickness_scale has 0.5-1.6 of headroom that was only ever tested paired with a weaker pa12_cf arm; this cuts width more aggressively (0.92->0.78) than any surviving test while relieving the taper and instead buying the missing stiffness margin from a real plate_thickness_scale bump (0.66->0.85) on th
- g69 `001d6d39` fitness 5.870 Wh/km-agg — was: The plate-width shrink failed on web thickness at 0.95, so this replaces it with an orthogonal mass-cut on the exact winning geometry -- moderate lightening holes (cutout 0.18, safely below the ~0.4 stress-riser zone) with a small thickness bump for margin -- while plates stay pinned at the elite's proven 0.9425/0.9959.
- g69 `099a8e46` fitness 5.874 Wh/km-agg — was: The prior front-sweep cut to 33deg overlapped rotor disks because the short/wide arm gave no extra radial clearance, so this takes a smaller sweep step (34.5deg) and pairs it with a longer arm (0.85 scale) plus grown plate scales (0.98/1.02) for the tip clearance and tongue-bolt seating that were missing before.
- g69 `eedcf261` fitness 5.971 Wh/km-agg — was: cf_plate's plate_thickness_scale has huge untouched headroom (elite sits at 0.66 of a 1.6 cap) and has never been used to fund BOTH mass-cutting arm levers at once, so this bumps plate_thickness_scale to 1.05 to buy structural margin for a real cutout (0.32) plus a real mid-shaft taper (tip_thickness_scale 0.70) simultaneously, relieving waist to 0.65 so the taper/holes/narrowing don't stack in th
- g72 `1f59e66f` fitness 5.787 Wh/km-agg — was: The only deck_gap cut ever tried (0.027) jumped straight past the real boundary and failed on rotor/deck clearance, leaving the whole 0.027-0.037 band unsampled, so this tests a moderate 0.032 on the unchanged winning geometry to find real standoff-mass savings without repeating the known failure point.
- g72 `7abd5ff3` fitness 6.030 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past cutout/taper combo stacked holes into an already-narrowed waist and lost, so this instead relieves the waist to near-neutral (0.95) and widens the root slightly (1.05) to give the shaft full cross-section margin, letting three moderate lightening holes (0.22) do the mass-cutting work in isolation without compounding stress concentration with a taper.
- g72 `c1f4b5cb` fitness 5.854 Wh/km-agg — was: Battery_wedge_deg has only ever been isolated-tested at 6deg on an older, weaker geometry, leaving the 6-15deg band untouched on the actual current champion recipe, so this pushes wedge to 9.5deg on the unchanged winning geometry to see if cutting frontal area for cold_headwind/crosswind now outweighs the CG-shift cost on the family that's actually winning.
- g75 `318f5b17` fitness 5.770 Wh/km-agg — was: Battery_wedge_deg has only ever been pushed upward from the elite's near-zero value (6deg, 9.5deg), both losing to the CG-shift cost, but the opposite direction -- a fully flat battery -- has never been isolated on the actual winning geometry, so this zeroes wedge while holding every other gene exactly at the elite's values to test whether the small existing tilt is itself a net cost rather than a
- g75 `a979213f` fitness 5.909 Wh/km-agg — was: Arm_thickness has sat pinned at the absolute floor (0.0025) through the entire elite lineage and every attempt to touch it was bundled with waist or width changes that failed for unrelated reasons, so this isolates a modest stiffness bump (0.0025->0.0033) with every other gene held exactly at elite values, testing whether the added storm-scenario stiffness margin outweighs its small mass/hot_thin 
- g75 `d63f41b2` fitness 5.822 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past cutout test confounded the mass cut by relieving the waist taper (0.55-0.65) as compensation, so the true effect of holes on the actual winning aggressive-taper geometry (waist 0.4452) has never been isolated; this adds a mild cutout (0.12, well below the ~0.4 stress-riser zone) with only a token thickness bump (0.0028) for margin, holding waist, width, sweeps, plates and everything els

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 17, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 34, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 17, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 6, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 38, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 27, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 42, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 10, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 11, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.01 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.20 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.60 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.19 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.15 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.52 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pla_plus)": 3, "arm overstressed (pet_cf)": 3, "arm overstressed (asa)": 2, "arm overstressed (petg)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 18 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 designs. MOST should be PIVOTAL: abandon that shared trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space (a pivot that lands near the elites is usually a wasted round). BUT check first whether the elites are sitting short of a GENE BOUND (including one that was recently widened) rather than short of a hard constraint or a worse-material tradeoff — that is unexploited headroom, not a dead local optimum, and abandoning it wastes a proposal on a hypothesis (a different material, a different shape family) that the run's own history may already show loses on mass. When you find that headroom, spend ONE of your 3 proposals aggressively pushing the CURRENT winning family further into it instead of discarding it. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates); tip_thickness_scale below 1.0 thins the MIDDLE of the shaft, not the tip itself (full thickness stays at the tongue and the motor mount, a bump-shaped dip in between) -- the structural check now covers the whole shaft station-by-station, so a design can fail on a mid-shaft station even when the root looks fine; and arm_cutout_scale places 3 lightening holes along the shaft sized off the LOCAL width there -- values above ~0.4 usually start failing on stress concentration at the holes, especially stacked with a low tip_thickness_scale in the same region.

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "tip_thickness_scale": <float>, "arm_cutout_scale": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 69d334ab — Every elite across the last 18 generations has frozen front/rear sweep within a ~1deg band near 37/44deg and every non-sweep lever (waist, width, thickness, cutout, tip-taper, wedge, deck_gap-down) has already been isolated and lost, so this abandons the frozen near-stock sweep entirely for a genuinely wide symmetric DeadCat splay (46/55deg, deep into unsampled territory) with plate_length/width_sflew at 6.124 Wh/km
candidate 6c374225 — Every historical deck_gap experiment (0.027 failed on rotor/deck clearance, 0.032 tested worse at 5.787) only ever probed downward from the elite's 0.0315, leaving the entire upper half of the 0.02-0.045 range genuinely untested despite the elite geometry never actually resting against that bound's failure mode in that direction, so this holds the exact current champion recipe fixed and pushes decflew at 5.812 Wh/km
candidate 052f1fa9 — The original wide-sweep pivot failed on rotor tip clearance because a short 0.8-scale arm combined with front sweep pushed to 49deg (17.6deg off stock) left too little radial spacing between prop disks; this fixes it by lengthening the arm to 1.15 for real radial clearance and pulling front sweep back to 40deg (rear to 40deg) so both sweeps sit close to stock while plate scales grow to keep the toflew at 6.163 Wh/km
candidate 0131076b — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Every design ever sampled -- elite or pivot alike -- keeps rear_sweep_deg greater than front_sweep_deg (the conventional DeadCat splay direction), a topology never once inverted in the run's history, so this flips it (front 49deg > rear 38deg) with plate_length/width_scale grown to 1.25/1.2 to keep the far-forward tongues seated, testing whether the opposite front/rear moment-arm and prop-wash dis

faeb6f8edb27

5.767 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.65
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.26
storm	4.42

81837e8357bb

5.767 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.65
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.26
storm	4.42

bf7d9ddf87f6

5.768 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.65
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.26
storm	4.42

6c1c1963d383

5.768 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.65
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.26
storm	4.43

318f5b17dcdb

5.770 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.66
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.26
storm	4.43

ec2d7efaa042

5.776 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.66
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.27
storm	4.43

9c7bb4e43f3f

5.779 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.07
cold_headwind	3.66
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.27
storm	4.43

5156b078e727

5.779 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.66
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.27
storm	4.43

54a36e893e10

5.782 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.66
crosswind	3.54
gusty_light	3.42
hot_thin	3.27
storm	4.44

17cd9b8ac906

5.784 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.07
cold_headwind	3.66
crosswind	3.54
gusty_light	3.42
hot_thin	3.27
storm	4.44

2db28b96541c

5.787 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.07
cold_headwind	3.66
crosswind	3.54
gusty_light	3.42
hot_thin	3.27
storm	4.44

6c3742252189

5.812 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.08
cold_headwind	3.69
crosswind	3.56
gusty_light	3.43
hot_thin	3.28
storm	4.46

f4db3aaf1636

5.816 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.08
cold_headwind	3.68
crosswind	3.56
gusty_light	3.44
hot_thin	3.29
storm	4.46

77a1d42e5c1e

5.864 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.11
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.59
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.31
storm	4.50

69d334abfd4a

6.124 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.24
cold_headwind	3.89
crosswind	3.75
gusty_light	3.61
hot_thin	3.45
storm	4.70

052f1fa949b5

6.163 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.25
cold_headwind	3.93
crosswind	3.78
gusty_light	3.63
hot_thin	3.46
storm	4.73

generation 77

faeb6f8edb27

5.767 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.65
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.26
storm	4.42

81837e8357bb

5.767 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.65
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.26
storm	4.42

6c1c1963d383

5.768 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.65
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.26
storm	4.43

bd90782a3b54

5.769 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.65
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.26
storm	4.42

3ea600b4fceb

5.769 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.65
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.27
storm	4.43

f5f3dcd08cef

5.769 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.65
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.26
storm	4.43

96a7776d4941

5.769 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.65
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.26
storm	4.42

318f5b17dcdb

5.770 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.66
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.26
storm	4.43

689963c40139

5.771 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.65
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.26
storm	4.43

b63dac7ce1c4

5.771 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.65
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.27
storm	4.43

48fa896bb2a0

5.776 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.66
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.27
storm	4.43

bffe99e4821f

5.778 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.66
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.26
storm	4.43

ce16092bd9af

5.784 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.67
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.42
hot_thin	3.27
storm	4.44

92b13b488105

5.785 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.07
cold_headwind	3.67
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.42
hot_thin	3.27
storm	4.44

c229c80180c1

5.795 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.07
cold_headwind	3.67
crosswind	3.54
gusty_light	3.42
hot_thin	3.28
storm	4.45

8ffc4f7cc2d5

6.863 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.61
cold_headwind	4.38
crosswind	4.22
gusty_light	4.04
hot_thin	3.85
storm	5.27

generation 76

6c1c1963d383

5.768 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.65
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.26
storm	4.43

bd90782a3b54

5.769 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.65
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.26
storm	4.42

3ea600b4fceb

5.769 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.65
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.27
storm	4.43

da53cb3c2a98

5.770 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.65
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.26
storm	4.43

db0e349c31b0

5.770 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.66
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.26
storm	4.43

318f5b17dcdb

5.770 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.66
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.26
storm	4.43

8dff7a249bfd

5.775 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.66
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.26
storm	4.43

1dc2cb3a6fe0

5.780 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.66
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.27
storm	4.44

30824f879e88

5.781 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.07
cold_headwind	3.66
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.27
storm	4.43

de63442c039a

5.788 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.07
cold_headwind	3.67
crosswind	3.54
gusty_light	3.42
hot_thin	3.27
storm	4.44

f35666ea7224

5.801 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.08
cold_headwind	3.67
crosswind	3.55
gusty_light	3.43
hot_thin	3.28
storm	4.45

f75f83b22b07

5.816 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.08
cold_headwind	3.69
crosswind	3.55
gusty_light	3.43
hot_thin	3.29
storm	4.46

6d1de7bcdfa4

5.825 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.69
crosswind	3.56
gusty_light	3.44
hot_thin	3.29
storm	4.47

f39db9cefcf9

7.247 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.79
cold_headwind	4.72
crosswind	4.45
gusty_light	4.24
hot_thin	4.03
storm	5.56

087e381cbaa8

∞ wh/km agg

arm overstressed (asa)

calm_warm	3.31
cold_headwind	4.16
crosswind	3.92
gusty_light	3.74
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.90

de12136b9a6a

∞ wh/km agg

arm overstressed (petg)

calm_warm	3.34
cold_headwind	4.08
crosswind	3.88
gusty_light	3.73
hot_thin	3.55
storm	4.86

generation 75

inputs

✦ claude designer · scheduled round · 3 design(s) injected

elites carried over unchanged	3
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	9
mutants (single parent)	1

mutation σ 0.030 of gene range
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 75 · scheduled round · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.55..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.4..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.0025..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters (the ROOT thickness)
- tip_thickness_scale: 0.5..1.0 — mid-shaft thickness dip as a fraction of root thickness (1.0 = uniform, no dip)
- arm_cutout_scale: 0.0..0.6 — 3 lightening holes along the shaft, radius as a fraction of the local width there (0 = none)
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.5..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257, g21 6.257, g22 6.172, g23 6.165, g24 6.144, g25 6.144, g26 6.144, g27 6.144, g28 6.144, g29 6.144, g30 6.144, g31 6.144, g32 6.144, g33 6.144, g34 6.144, g35 6.144, g36 6.113, g37 6.113, g38 6.113, g39 6.051, g40 6.048, g41 6.045, g42 6.038, g43 6.035, g44 6.027, g45 6.023, g46 6.023, g47 6.020, g48 6.019, g49 5.996, g50 5.996, g51 5.996, g52 5.992, g53 5.986, g54 5.980, g55 5.972, g56 5.972, g57 5.972, g58 5.964, g59 5.889, g60 5.872, g61 5.855, g62 5.853, g63 5.851, g64 5.851, g65 5.839, g66 5.839, g67 5.830, g68 5.830, g69 5.823, g70 5.810, g71 5.806, g72 5.787, g73 5.786, g74 5.775 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 15 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 5.775 Wh/km-agg, frame 56 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7806, "arm_width_scale": 0.8866, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4452, "arm_thickness": 0.0025, "tip_thickness_scale": 1.0, "arm_cutout_scale": 0.0, "front_sweep_deg": 36.1573, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.5966, "plate_length_scale": 0.946, "plate_width_scale": 0.9992, "deck_gap": 0.032, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.9425, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.6001, "material": 0.0686} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.06, "cold_headwind": 3.66, "crosswind": 3.53, "gusty_light": 3.41, "hot_thin": 3.26, "storm": 4.43}
fitness 5.783 Wh/km-agg, frame 56 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7773, "arm_width_scale": 0.8458, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4452, "arm_thickness": 0.0025, "tip_thickness_scale": 1.0, "arm_cutout_scale": 0.0, "front_sweep_deg": 36.6999, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.7334, "plate_length_scale": 0.9536, "plate_width_scale": 1.0027, "deck_gap": 0.0314, "battery_wedge_deg": 1.016, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.631, "material": 0.0686} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.07, "cold_headwind": 3.67, "crosswind": 3.54, "gusty_light": 3.42, "hot_thin": 3.27, "storm": 4.44}
fitness 5.786 Wh/km-agg, frame 57 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7773, "arm_width_scale": 0.8854, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4452, "arm_thickness": 0.0025, "tip_thickness_scale": 1.0, "arm_cutout_scale": 0.0, "front_sweep_deg": 36.1573, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.719, "plate_length_scale": 0.9457, "plate_width_scale": 1.003, "deck_gap": 0.032, "battery_wedge_deg": 1.004, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.6313, "material": 0.0686} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.06, "cold_headwind": 3.67, "crosswind": 3.54, "gusty_light": 3.42, "hot_thin": 3.27, "storm": 4.44}
fitness 5.786 Wh/km-agg, frame 57 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7773, "arm_width_scale": 0.8854, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4452, "arm_thickness": 0.0025, "tip_thickness_scale": 1.0, "arm_cutout_scale": 0.0, "front_sweep_deg": 36.1573, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.719, "plate_length_scale": 0.9536, "plate_width_scale": 0.9987, "deck_gap": 0.032, "battery_wedge_deg": 1.004, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.6313, "material": 0.0686} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.06, "cold_headwind": 3.67, "crosswind": 3.54, "gusty_light": 3.42, "hot_thin": 3.27, "storm": 4.44}
fitness 5.787 Wh/km-agg, frame 57 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7806, "arm_width_scale": 0.8871, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4452, "arm_thickness": 0.0025, "tip_thickness_scale": 1.0, "arm_cutout_scale": 0.0, "front_sweep_deg": 36.1573, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.5966, "plate_length_scale": 0.9531, "plate_width_scale": 0.9992, "deck_gap": 0.032, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.9425, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.633, "material": 0.0686} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.06, "cold_headwind": 3.67, "crosswind": 3.54, "gusty_light": 3.42, "hot_thin": 3.27, "storm": 4.44}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g57 `dd8058c9` fitness 6.131 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior sweep-opening test bundled it with longer arms and lost, so sweep was never isolated on the actual winning short-arm geometry; this holds arm_length/width/waist/thickness/material/deck_gap/wedge exactly at elite values and opens front/rear sweep to 42/48 deg (offsets of +10.6/+12 from stock) with plate_length/width grown to 1.22/1.24 per the offset-to-plate-growth rule, testing whether
- g57 `de6b8ddc` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: The failure was rotor-disk tip overlap from pairing near-stock arm_length_scale (0.8) with a wide, untapered arm (width 1.0, waist 0.75) that pushes prop tips outward without added radial reach, so this keeps the wide/untapered-arm stiffness concept and PETG material but lengthens the arm to 1.0 for genuine tip clearance and nudges rear sweep/plate scale slightly to stay within the offset-to-plate
- g58 `e09e735b` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: The winning family has always bought arm stiffness margin by thickening the arm itself while plate_thickness_scale sits pinned at pa12_cf's 0.80 floor with 0.5-1.6 of headroom never touched -- this keeps the exact winning short-arm geometry but shifts the stiffness budget to the deck plates (1.15) so the arm can go thinner (0.0035) with a touch less taper (waist 0.58) for a net mass/drag win untes
- g59 `939e58c1` fitness 5.889 Wh/km-agg — was: The rejected carbon-plate design was sound except plate_thickness_scale 0.55 produced 1.1mm webs against carbon's 1.2mm floor, so this raises plate_thickness_scale to 0.65 (real margin above the failing point) while holding every other gene -- including the untested low-taper arm and near-stock sweep -- exactly as designed.
- g59 `acb48776` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pet_cf)) — was: PET-CF has only ever been flown bundled with long arms (g51 1.05 scale, g53 1.05 scale), both of which lost by 0.6-0.7 Wh/km-agg and left material itself unjudged, exactly the confound that cf_plate isolation cleared in g53; this transplants the unchanged winning short-arm pa12_cf recipe onto pet_cf (material 0.40) with plate_thickness_scale held at the elite's already-compliant 0.8238, testing pe
- g59 `e584eb50` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: Every past width change moved only one direction (down, to 0.60-0.62) and always lost 0.19 Wh/km-agg, while the two attempts to raise width instead confounded it with an untapered waist and extreme 1.2 scale and failed on tip deflection -- this isolates a moderate width increase (0.92, well short of that failed 1.2 extreme) with the elite's own proven taper (waist 0.54) unchanged, using the added 
- g60 `11a813e1` fitness 5.926 Wh/km-agg — was: Battery_wedge_deg has sat almost untouched (0.23-0.35 of a 0-15 range) and every prior clean wedge attempt was bundled with a weaker arm or run on pa12_cf, never on the actual current cf_plate champion recipe; this holds the winning geometry exactly and pushes wedge to a moderate 6deg to isolate whether reduced frontal area beats the added CG-shift cost on the family that is actually winning.
- g60 `ac35c1dc` fitness 6.019 Wh/km-agg — was: Width cuts to 0.60-0.62 always lost on printed materials and the one aggressive width+waist combo on pa12_cf failed tip deflection, but that confound was never isolated on cf_plate, which has a strictly better stiffness-to-weight ratio; this cuts width to 0.65 while relieving the taper (waist 0.60) and adding a modest thickness bump for margin, testing whether carbon alone can survive the narrow-a
- g63 `0a85bf0a` fitness 5.911 Wh/km-agg — was: if cutout holes and a mid-shaft taper each cut mass in isolation, combining mild versions of both on the winning geometry should compound the hot_thin/mass gain further than either alone, so this pairs cutout_scale 0.15 with tip_thickness_scale 0.85 (both moderate, not pushed toward their individual extremes) plus a relieved waist (0.55) and a thickness bump (0.0029) specifically to dodge the flag
- g63 `58619732` fitness 5.916 Wh/km-agg — was: arm_cutout_scale has sat at 0.0 through the entire cf_plate elite lineage despite carbon's superior stiffness-to-weight ratio giving it the most margin to absorb stress risers, so this adds three moderate lightening holes (0.28, safely below the ~0.4 stress-concentration danger zone) to the exact winning short-arm geometry with a small thickness bump (0.0026->0.0030) for margin, leaving the taper 
- g63 `6a61b37c` fitness 5.972 Wh/km-agg — was: tip_thickness_scale has also sat frozen at 1.0 (no mid-shaft dip) through the entire elite lineage even though bending stress is lowest at mid-shaft, so this pushes it to 0.62 to trim mass where it costs least structurally, compensates with a thicker root (0.0026->0.0032) for margin at the tongue/motor-mount stations, and relieves the waist (0.4725->0.65) so the narrowing and thinning levers don't
- g65 `40a79371` fitness 6.415 Wh/km-agg — was: Every current elite and nearly every prior test relies on the same stiffening trick -- aggressive mid-shaft taper (waist ~0.47-0.60) on a near-floor-thickness shaft -- and every attempt to relax that taper without heavy compensation has failed tip deflection, so this abandons taper entirely (waist 0.95, effectively untapered) and instead buys stiffness from a wider, thicker 'stout beam' cross-sect
- g65 `e8accf07` fitness 6.513 Wh/km-agg — was: The first failure was driven by arm length outgrowing the plate, not sweep (sweep matched the elite's near-stock values) -- this keeps the exact long-arm/lower-disk-loading concept but grows plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale further (to 1.18/1.15, beyond the prior 1.05/1.03) to match arm_length_scale's own offset from stock, not just the sweep offset, so the tongue bolts stay seated.
- g66 `92aee523` fitness 5.904 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior width cut spent its compensation budget on arm thickness or taper and lost, but plate_thickness_scale has 0.5-1.6 of headroom that was only ever tested paired with a weaker pa12_cf arm; this cuts width more aggressively (0.92->0.78) than any surviving test while relieving the taper and instead buying the missing stiffness margin from a real plate_thickness_scale bump (0.66->0.85) on th
- g69 `001d6d39` fitness 5.870 Wh/km-agg — was: The plate-width shrink failed on web thickness at 0.95, so this replaces it with an orthogonal mass-cut on the exact winning geometry -- moderate lightening holes (cutout 0.18, safely below the ~0.4 stress-riser zone) with a small thickness bump for margin -- while plates stay pinned at the elite's proven 0.9425/0.9959.
- g69 `099a8e46` fitness 5.874 Wh/km-agg — was: The prior front-sweep cut to 33deg overlapped rotor disks because the short/wide arm gave no extra radial clearance, so this takes a smaller sweep step (34.5deg) and pairs it with a longer arm (0.85 scale) plus grown plate scales (0.98/1.02) for the tip clearance and tongue-bolt seating that were missing before.
- g69 `eedcf261` fitness 5.971 Wh/km-agg — was: cf_plate's plate_thickness_scale has huge untouched headroom (elite sits at 0.66 of a 1.6 cap) and has never been used to fund BOTH mass-cutting arm levers at once, so this bumps plate_thickness_scale to 1.05 to buy structural margin for a real cutout (0.32) plus a real mid-shaft taper (tip_thickness_scale 0.70) simultaneously, relieving waist to 0.65 so the taper/holes/narrowing don't stack in th
- g72 `1f59e66f` fitness 5.787 Wh/km-agg — was: The only deck_gap cut ever tried (0.027) jumped straight past the real boundary and failed on rotor/deck clearance, leaving the whole 0.027-0.037 band unsampled, so this tests a moderate 0.032 on the unchanged winning geometry to find real standoff-mass savings without repeating the known failure point.
- g72 `7abd5ff3` fitness 6.030 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past cutout/taper combo stacked holes into an already-narrowed waist and lost, so this instead relieves the waist to near-neutral (0.95) and widens the root slightly (1.05) to give the shaft full cross-section margin, letting three moderate lightening holes (0.22) do the mass-cutting work in isolation without compounding stress concentration with a taper.
- g72 `c1f4b5cb` fitness 5.854 Wh/km-agg — was: Battery_wedge_deg has only ever been isolated-tested at 6deg on an older, weaker geometry, leaving the 6-15deg band untouched on the actual current champion recipe, so this pushes wedge to 9.5deg on the unchanged winning geometry to see if cutting frontal area for cold_headwind/crosswind now outweighs the CG-shift cost on the family that's actually winning.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 17, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 34, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 17, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 6, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 38, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 27, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 42, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 10, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 11, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.01 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.20 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.60 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.19 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.15 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.52 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pla_plus)": 3, "arm overstressed (pet_cf)": 3, "arm overstressed (asa)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

Propose exactly 3 NEW genome vectors that are meaningfully DIFFERENT from the elites and from each other — design hypotheses, not small perturbations. Build on what the trajectory and your earlier proposals' outcomes show worked; avoid repeating what failed. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates); tip_thickness_scale below 1.0 thins the MIDDLE of the shaft, not the tip itself (full thickness stays at the tongue and the motor mount, a bump-shaped dip in between) -- the structural check now covers the whole shaft station-by-station, so a design can fail on a mid-shaft station even when the root looks fine; and arm_cutout_scale places 3 lightening holes along the shaft sized off the LOCAL width there -- values above ~0.4 usually start failing on stress concentration at the holes, especially stacked with a low tip_thickness_scale in the same region.

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "tip_thickness_scale": <float>, "arm_cutout_scale": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate d63f41b2 — Every past cutout test confounded the mass cut by relieving the waist taper (0.55-0.65) as compensation, so the true effect of holes on the actual winning aggressive-taper geometry (waist 0.4452) has never been isolated; this adds a mild cutout (0.12, well below the ~0.4 stress-riser zone) with only a token thickness bump (0.0028) for margin, holding waist, width, sweeps, plates and everything elsflew at 5.822 Wh/km
candidate 318f5b17 — Battery_wedge_deg has only ever been pushed upward from the elite's near-zero value (6deg, 9.5deg), both losing to the CG-shift cost, but the opposite direction -- a fully flat battery -- has never been isolated on the actual winning geometry, so this zeroes wedge while holding every other gene exactly at the elite's values to test whether the small existing tilt is itself a net cost rather than aflew at 5.770 Wh/km
candidate a979213f — Arm_thickness has sat pinned at the absolute floor (0.0025) through the entire elite lineage and every attempt to touch it was bundled with waist or width changes that failed for unrelated reasons, so this isolates a modest stiffness bump (0.0025->0.0033) with every other gene held exactly at elite values, testing whether the added storm-scenario stiffness margin outweighs its small mass/hot_thin flew at 5.909 Wh/km

3ea600b4fceb

5.769 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.65
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.27
storm	4.43

318f5b17dcdb

5.770 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.66
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.26
storm	4.43

caf7425025ef

5.774 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.66
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.27
storm	4.43

8dff7a249bfd

5.775 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.66
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.26
storm	4.43

461576713f2a

5.783 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.07
cold_headwind	3.67
crosswind	3.54
gusty_light	3.42
hot_thin	3.27
storm	4.44

a59a4dc1719e

5.784 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.66
crosswind	3.54
gusty_light	3.42
hot_thin	3.27
storm	4.44

d33be0b1ff3e

5.784 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.66
crosswind	3.54
gusty_light	3.42
hot_thin	3.27
storm	4.44

4c43c65e16e2

5.788 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.07
cold_headwind	3.67
crosswind	3.54
gusty_light	3.42
hot_thin	3.27
storm	4.44

72e5524ac039

5.788 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.07
cold_headwind	3.67
crosswind	3.54
gusty_light	3.42
hot_thin	3.27
storm	4.44

147477ac7643

5.800 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.08
cold_headwind	3.67
crosswind	3.55
gusty_light	3.43
hot_thin	3.28
storm	4.45

564452b9cc58

5.805 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.07
cold_headwind	3.68
crosswind	3.55
gusty_light	3.43
hot_thin	3.28
storm	4.45

822d4919c468

5.810 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.07
cold_headwind	3.69
crosswind	3.55
gusty_light	3.43
hot_thin	3.28
storm	4.46

5f0fcb0f352b

5.810 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.08
cold_headwind	3.68
crosswind	3.56
gusty_light	3.43
hot_thin	3.28
storm	4.46

d63f41b20cc5

5.822 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.08
cold_headwind	3.69
crosswind	3.56
gusty_light	3.44
hot_thin	3.29
storm	4.47

4f622701b563

5.865 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.59
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.31
storm	4.50

a979213f29d7

5.909 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.13
cold_headwind	3.74
crosswind	3.62
gusty_light	3.49
hot_thin	3.34
storm	4.53

generation 74

8dff7a249bfd

5.775 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.66
crosswind	3.53
gusty_light	3.41
hot_thin	3.26
storm	4.43

461576713f2a

5.783 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.07
cold_headwind	3.67
crosswind	3.54
gusty_light	3.42
hot_thin	3.27
storm	4.44

bff4bcb6264c

5.786 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.67
crosswind	3.54
gusty_light	3.42
hot_thin	3.27
storm	4.44

87c8fa55a889

5.786 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.67
crosswind	3.54
gusty_light	3.42
hot_thin	3.27
storm	4.44

1f59e66ff16e

5.787 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.67
crosswind	3.54
gusty_light	3.42
hot_thin	3.27
storm	4.44

8e183647f728

5.789 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.07
cold_headwind	3.67
crosswind	3.54
gusty_light	3.42
hot_thin	3.27
storm	4.44

452eeb990a01

5.801 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.07
cold_headwind	3.68
crosswind	3.55
gusty_light	3.43
hot_thin	3.28
storm	4.45

752459a29c9d

5.801 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.08
cold_headwind	3.68
crosswind	3.55
gusty_light	3.43
hot_thin	3.28
storm	4.45

44f028494322

5.802 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.07
cold_headwind	3.68
crosswind	3.55
gusty_light	3.43
hot_thin	3.28
storm	4.45

20264e3c8143

5.804 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.07
cold_headwind	3.68
crosswind	3.55
gusty_light	3.43
hot_thin	3.28
storm	4.45

68bacd04c90b

5.804 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.07
cold_headwind	3.68
crosswind	3.55
gusty_light	3.43
hot_thin	3.28
storm	4.45

4c5ab9ab38ea

5.804 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.07
cold_headwind	3.68
crosswind	3.55
gusty_light	3.43
hot_thin	3.28
storm	4.45

5f0fcb0f352b

5.810 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.08
cold_headwind	3.68
crosswind	3.56
gusty_light	3.43
hot_thin	3.28
storm	4.46

1aa9e2f88eb9

5.810 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.08
cold_headwind	3.68
crosswind	3.55
gusty_light	3.43
hot_thin	3.28
storm	4.46

0b8f0887af28

5.811 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.08
cold_headwind	3.68
crosswind	3.55
gusty_light	3.43
hot_thin	3.28
storm	4.46

692e4aa73800

5.856 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.59
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.49

generation 73

87c8fa55a889

5.786 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.67
crosswind	3.54
gusty_light	3.42
hot_thin	3.27
storm	4.44

1f59e66ff16e

5.787 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.67
crosswind	3.54
gusty_light	3.42
hot_thin	3.27
storm	4.44

44f028494322

5.802 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.07
cold_headwind	3.68
crosswind	3.55
gusty_light	3.43
hot_thin	3.28
storm	4.45

41259fd28583

5.805 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.07
cold_headwind	3.68
crosswind	3.55
gusty_light	3.43
hot_thin	3.28
storm	4.45

811956359c17

5.808 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.08
cold_headwind	3.68
crosswind	3.55
gusty_light	3.43
hot_thin	3.28
storm	4.46

32b85dc73294

5.809 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.08
cold_headwind	3.68
crosswind	3.55
gusty_light	3.43
hot_thin	3.28
storm	4.46

aaf8c6434082

5.812 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.08
cold_headwind	3.69
crosswind	3.55
gusty_light	3.43
hot_thin	3.28
storm	4.46

cd89f22ced20

5.814 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.08
cold_headwind	3.69
crosswind	3.55
gusty_light	3.43
hot_thin	3.28
storm	4.46

c16296af5014

5.815 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.08
cold_headwind	3.69
crosswind	3.55
gusty_light	3.43
hot_thin	3.28
storm	4.46

642a9dea6455

5.817 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.08
cold_headwind	3.69
crosswind	3.56
gusty_light	3.44
hot_thin	3.29
storm	4.46

0fdf7610d67d

5.820 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.08
cold_headwind	3.69
crosswind	3.56
gusty_light	3.44
hot_thin	3.29
storm	4.46

3d656bf1228d

5.822 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.08
cold_headwind	3.69
crosswind	3.56
gusty_light	3.44
hot_thin	3.29
storm	4.47

3e80683d6279

5.823 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.69
crosswind	3.56
gusty_light	3.44
hot_thin	3.29
storm	4.47

3a80bbfc7f19

5.830 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.08
cold_headwind	3.70
crosswind	3.57
gusty_light	3.44
hot_thin	3.29
storm	4.47

4030fce718d2

6.938 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.65
cold_headwind	4.43
crosswind	4.27
gusty_light	4.08
hot_thin	3.90
storm	5.33

72a75c4ba49b

7.884 wh/km agg

calm_warm	4.13
cold_headwind	5.09
crosswind	4.85
gusty_light	4.61
hot_thin	4.39
storm	6.06

generation 72

inputs

✦ claude designer · scheduled round · 3 design(s) injected

elites carried over unchanged	3
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	9
mutants (single parent)	1

mutation σ 0.030 of gene range
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 72 · scheduled round · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.55..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.4..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.0025..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters (the ROOT thickness)
- tip_thickness_scale: 0.5..1.0 — mid-shaft thickness dip as a fraction of root thickness (1.0 = uniform, no dip)
- arm_cutout_scale: 0.0..0.6 — 3 lightening holes along the shaft, radius as a fraction of the local width there (0 = none)
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.5..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257, g21 6.257, g22 6.172, g23 6.165, g24 6.144, g25 6.144, g26 6.144, g27 6.144, g28 6.144, g29 6.144, g30 6.144, g31 6.144, g32 6.144, g33 6.144, g34 6.144, g35 6.144, g36 6.113, g37 6.113, g38 6.113, g39 6.051, g40 6.048, g41 6.045, g42 6.038, g43 6.035, g44 6.027, g45 6.023, g46 6.023, g47 6.020, g48 6.019, g49 5.996, g50 5.996, g51 5.996, g52 5.992, g53 5.986, g54 5.980, g55 5.972, g56 5.972, g57 5.972, g58 5.964, g59 5.889, g60 5.872, g61 5.855, g62 5.853, g63 5.851, g64 5.851, g65 5.839, g66 5.839, g67 5.830, g68 5.830, g69 5.823, g70 5.810, g71 5.806 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 12 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 5.806 Wh/km-agg, frame 58 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7806, "arm_width_scale": 0.8871, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4452, "arm_thickness": 0.0025, "tip_thickness_scale": 1.0, "arm_cutout_scale": 0.0, "front_sweep_deg": 36.1573, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.5966, "plate_length_scale": 0.9531, "plate_width_scale": 0.9992, "deck_gap": 0.0371, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.9425, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.633, "material": 0.0686} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.07, "cold_headwind": 3.68, "crosswind": 3.55, "gusty_light": 3.43, "hot_thin": 3.28, "storm": 4.45}
fitness 5.808 Wh/km-agg, frame 58 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7754, "arm_width_scale": 0.9229, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4645, "arm_thickness": 0.0025, "tip_thickness_scale": 0.9997, "arm_cutout_scale": 0.0064, "front_sweep_deg": 36.2359, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.6732, "plate_length_scale": 0.9424, "plate_width_scale": 0.9979, "deck_gap": 0.0376, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.7045, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.6004, "material": 0.0547} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.07, "cold_headwind": 3.69, "crosswind": 3.55, "gusty_light": 3.43, "hot_thin": 3.28, "storm": 4.46}
fitness 5.810 Wh/km-agg, frame 59 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7806, "arm_width_scale": 0.8871, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4452, "arm_thickness": 0.0025, "tip_thickness_scale": 1.0, "arm_cutout_scale": 0.0058, "front_sweep_deg": 36.1573, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.5966, "plate_length_scale": 0.9423, "plate_width_scale": 0.9959, "deck_gap": 0.0371, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.9425, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.6664, "material": 0.0417} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.08, "cold_headwind": 3.69, "crosswind": 3.55, "gusty_light": 3.43, "hot_thin": 3.28, "storm": 4.46}
fitness 5.813 Wh/km-agg, frame 59 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7838, "arm_width_scale": 0.8972, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4386, "arm_thickness": 0.0025, "tip_thickness_scale": 1.0, "arm_cutout_scale": 0.0139, "front_sweep_deg": 36.3584, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.5478, "plate_length_scale": 0.9426, "plate_width_scale": 1.0001, "deck_gap": 0.0373, "battery_wedge_deg": 1.3117, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.6582, "material": 0.0532} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.08, "cold_headwind": 3.69, "crosswind": 3.56, "gusty_light": 3.43, "hot_thin": 3.28, "storm": 4.46}
fitness 5.820 Wh/km-agg, frame 59 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7806, "arm_width_scale": 0.8974, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4444, "arm_thickness": 0.0025, "tip_thickness_scale": 1.0, "arm_cutout_scale": 0.0124, "front_sweep_deg": 36.3488, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.6017, "plate_length_scale": 0.9423, "plate_width_scale": 1.0029, "deck_gap": 0.0374, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.929, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.6597, "material": 0.0473} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.08, "cold_headwind": 3.69, "crosswind": 3.56, "gusty_light": 3.44, "hot_thin": 3.29, "storm": 4.47}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g56 `d3f2fb06` fitness 6.051 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior carbon test just transplanted the pa12_cf floor-thickness recipe onto carbon and lost by a wide margin, never exploiting carbon's actual two advantages -- no printed-material thickness floor and a better stiffness-to-weight ratio -- so this pivots to genuinely thin (0.0026 m) carbon arms near the true minimum, aggressively tapered (waist 0.45) with moderate width (0.95) for root streng
- g56 `f8b8a58e` fitness 5.973 Wh/km-agg — was: The failed vector was the current top elite's exact geometry with deck_gap cut to 0.027, which put the rotor disk too close to the deck/battery stack; restoring deck_gap to the elite's proven 0.0381 while keeping every other gene identical removes that single constraint violation without touching the validated aerodynamic/mass tradeoffs.
- g57 `d5b8430e` fitness 6.017 Wh/km-agg — was: arm_waist_scale has sat frozen at ~0.556 across every elite for the entire plateau despite a floor of 0.4, meaning the mid-shaft taper lever was never actually pushed -- this keeps the exact winning PA12-CF short-arm geometry unchanged except deepening the waist cut to 0.42 (near its bound) with a compensating thickness bump to 0.0050 to hold stiffness margin, isolating unexploited drag headroom r
- g57 `dd8058c9` fitness 6.131 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior sweep-opening test bundled it with longer arms and lost, so sweep was never isolated on the actual winning short-arm geometry; this holds arm_length/width/waist/thickness/material/deck_gap/wedge exactly at elite values and opens front/rear sweep to 42/48 deg (offsets of +10.6/+12 from stock) with plate_length/width grown to 1.22/1.24 per the offset-to-plate-growth rule, testing whether
- g57 `de6b8ddc` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: The failure was rotor-disk tip overlap from pairing near-stock arm_length_scale (0.8) with a wide, untapered arm (width 1.0, waist 0.75) that pushes prop tips outward without added radial reach, so this keeps the wide/untapered-arm stiffness concept and PETG material but lengthens the arm to 1.0 for genuine tip clearance and nudges rear sweep/plate scale slightly to stay within the offset-to-plate
- g58 `e09e735b` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: The winning family has always bought arm stiffness margin by thickening the arm itself while plate_thickness_scale sits pinned at pa12_cf's 0.80 floor with 0.5-1.6 of headroom never touched -- this keeps the exact winning short-arm geometry but shifts the stiffness budget to the deck plates (1.15) so the arm can go thinner (0.0035) with a touch less taper (waist 0.58) for a net mass/drag win untes
- g59 `939e58c1` fitness 5.889 Wh/km-agg — was: The rejected carbon-plate design was sound except plate_thickness_scale 0.55 produced 1.1mm webs against carbon's 1.2mm floor, so this raises plate_thickness_scale to 0.65 (real margin above the failing point) while holding every other gene -- including the untested low-taper arm and near-stock sweep -- exactly as designed.
- g59 `acb48776` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pet_cf)) — was: PET-CF has only ever been flown bundled with long arms (g51 1.05 scale, g53 1.05 scale), both of which lost by 0.6-0.7 Wh/km-agg and left material itself unjudged, exactly the confound that cf_plate isolation cleared in g53; this transplants the unchanged winning short-arm pa12_cf recipe onto pet_cf (material 0.40) with plate_thickness_scale held at the elite's already-compliant 0.8238, testing pe
- g59 `e584eb50` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: Every past width change moved only one direction (down, to 0.60-0.62) and always lost 0.19 Wh/km-agg, while the two attempts to raise width instead confounded it with an untapered waist and extreme 1.2 scale and failed on tip deflection -- this isolates a moderate width increase (0.92, well short of that failed 1.2 extreme) with the elite's own proven taper (waist 0.54) unchanged, using the added 
- g60 `11a813e1` fitness 5.926 Wh/km-agg — was: Battery_wedge_deg has sat almost untouched (0.23-0.35 of a 0-15 range) and every prior clean wedge attempt was bundled with a weaker arm or run on pa12_cf, never on the actual current cf_plate champion recipe; this holds the winning geometry exactly and pushes wedge to a moderate 6deg to isolate whether reduced frontal area beats the added CG-shift cost on the family that is actually winning.
- g60 `ac35c1dc` fitness 6.019 Wh/km-agg — was: Width cuts to 0.60-0.62 always lost on printed materials and the one aggressive width+waist combo on pa12_cf failed tip deflection, but that confound was never isolated on cf_plate, which has a strictly better stiffness-to-weight ratio; this cuts width to 0.65 while relieving the taper (waist 0.60) and adding a modest thickness bump for margin, testing whether carbon alone can survive the narrow-a
- g63 `0a85bf0a` fitness 5.911 Wh/km-agg — was: if cutout holes and a mid-shaft taper each cut mass in isolation, combining mild versions of both on the winning geometry should compound the hot_thin/mass gain further than either alone, so this pairs cutout_scale 0.15 with tip_thickness_scale 0.85 (both moderate, not pushed toward their individual extremes) plus a relieved waist (0.55) and a thickness bump (0.0029) specifically to dodge the flag
- g63 `58619732` fitness 5.916 Wh/km-agg — was: arm_cutout_scale has sat at 0.0 through the entire cf_plate elite lineage despite carbon's superior stiffness-to-weight ratio giving it the most margin to absorb stress risers, so this adds three moderate lightening holes (0.28, safely below the ~0.4 stress-concentration danger zone) to the exact winning short-arm geometry with a small thickness bump (0.0026->0.0030) for margin, leaving the taper 
- g63 `6a61b37c` fitness 5.972 Wh/km-agg — was: tip_thickness_scale has also sat frozen at 1.0 (no mid-shaft dip) through the entire elite lineage even though bending stress is lowest at mid-shaft, so this pushes it to 0.62 to trim mass where it costs least structurally, compensates with a thicker root (0.0026->0.0032) for margin at the tongue/motor-mount stations, and relieves the waist (0.4725->0.65) so the narrowing and thinning levers don't
- g65 `40a79371` fitness 6.415 Wh/km-agg — was: Every current elite and nearly every prior test relies on the same stiffening trick -- aggressive mid-shaft taper (waist ~0.47-0.60) on a near-floor-thickness shaft -- and every attempt to relax that taper without heavy compensation has failed tip deflection, so this abandons taper entirely (waist 0.95, effectively untapered) and instead buys stiffness from a wider, thicker 'stout beam' cross-sect
- g65 `e8accf07` fitness 6.513 Wh/km-agg — was: The first failure was driven by arm length outgrowing the plate, not sweep (sweep matched the elite's near-stock values) -- this keeps the exact long-arm/lower-disk-loading concept but grows plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale further (to 1.18/1.15, beyond the prior 1.05/1.03) to match arm_length_scale's own offset from stock, not just the sweep offset, so the tongue bolts stay seated.
- g66 `92aee523` fitness 5.904 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior width cut spent its compensation budget on arm thickness or taper and lost, but plate_thickness_scale has 0.5-1.6 of headroom that was only ever tested paired with a weaker pa12_cf arm; this cuts width more aggressively (0.92->0.78) than any surviving test while relieving the taper and instead buying the missing stiffness margin from a real plate_thickness_scale bump (0.66->0.85) on th
- g69 `001d6d39` fitness 5.870 Wh/km-agg — was: The plate-width shrink failed on web thickness at 0.95, so this replaces it with an orthogonal mass-cut on the exact winning geometry -- moderate lightening holes (cutout 0.18, safely below the ~0.4 stress-riser zone) with a small thickness bump for margin -- while plates stay pinned at the elite's proven 0.9425/0.9959.
- g69 `099a8e46` fitness 5.874 Wh/km-agg — was: The prior front-sweep cut to 33deg overlapped rotor disks because the short/wide arm gave no extra radial clearance, so this takes a smaller sweep step (34.5deg) and pairs it with a longer arm (0.85 scale) plus grown plate scales (0.98/1.02) for the tip clearance and tongue-bolt seating that were missing before.
- g69 `eedcf261` fitness 5.971 Wh/km-agg — was: cf_plate's plate_thickness_scale has huge untouched headroom (elite sits at 0.66 of a 1.6 cap) and has never been used to fund BOTH mass-cutting arm levers at once, so this bumps plate_thickness_scale to 1.05 to buy structural margin for a real cutout (0.32) plus a real mid-shaft taper (tip_thickness_scale 0.70) simultaneously, relieving waist to 0.65 so the taper/holes/narrowing don't stack in th

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 17, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 34, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 17, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 6, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 38, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 27, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 42, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 10, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 11, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.01 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.20 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.60 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.19 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.15 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.52 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pla_plus)": 3, "arm overstressed (pet_cf)": 3, "arm overstressed (asa)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

Propose exactly 3 NEW genome vectors that are meaningfully DIFFERENT from the elites and from each other — design hypotheses, not small perturbations. Build on what the trajectory and your earlier proposals' outcomes show worked; avoid repeating what failed. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates); tip_thickness_scale below 1.0 thins the MIDDLE of the shaft, not the tip itself (full thickness stays at the tongue and the motor mount, a bump-shaped dip in between) -- the structural check now covers the whole shaft station-by-station, so a design can fail on a mid-shaft station even when the root looks fine; and arm_cutout_scale places 3 lightening holes along the shaft sized off the LOCAL width there -- values above ~0.4 usually start failing on stress concentration at the holes, especially stacked with a low tip_thickness_scale in the same region.

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "tip_thickness_scale": <float>, "arm_cutout_scale": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 7abd5ff3 — Every past cutout/taper combo stacked holes into an already-narrowed waist and lost, so this instead relieves the waist to near-neutral (0.95) and widens the root slightly (1.05) to give the shaft full cross-section margin, letting three moderate lightening holes (0.22) do the mass-cutting work in isolation without compounding stress concentration with a taper.flew at 6.030 Wh/km
candidate c1f4b5cb — Battery_wedge_deg has only ever been isolated-tested at 6deg on an older, weaker geometry, leaving the 6-15deg band untouched on the actual current champion recipe, so this pushes wedge to 9.5deg on the unchanged winning geometry to see if cutting frontal area for cold_headwind/crosswind now outweighs the CG-shift cost on the family that's actually winning.flew at 5.854 Wh/km
candidate 1f59e66f — The only deck_gap cut ever tried (0.027) jumped straight past the real boundary and failed on rotor/deck clearance, leaving the whole 0.027-0.037 band unsampled, so this tests a moderate 0.032 on the unchanged winning geometry to find real standoff-mass savings without repeating the known failure point.flew at 5.787 Wh/km

1f59e66ff16e

5.787 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.06
cold_headwind	3.67
crosswind	3.54
gusty_light	3.42
hot_thin	3.27
storm	4.44

41259fd28583

5.805 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.07
cold_headwind	3.68
crosswind	3.55
gusty_light	3.43
hot_thin	3.28
storm	4.45

b0f1891a8f78

5.806 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.07
cold_headwind	3.68
crosswind	3.55
gusty_light	3.43
hot_thin	3.28
storm	4.45

1b211058c096

5.808 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.07
cold_headwind	3.69
crosswind	3.55
gusty_light	3.43
hot_thin	3.28
storm	4.46

58846fcec09d

5.813 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.08
cold_headwind	3.69
crosswind	3.55
gusty_light	3.43
hot_thin	3.28
storm	4.46

5f27ee552d29

5.817 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.08
cold_headwind	3.69
crosswind	3.56
gusty_light	3.43
hot_thin	3.28
storm	4.46

c7caf024b32a

5.820 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.08
cold_headwind	3.69
crosswind	3.56
gusty_light	3.44
hot_thin	3.29
storm	4.46

b4fab6ab7227

5.820 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.08
cold_headwind	3.69
crosswind	3.56
gusty_light	3.44
hot_thin	3.29
storm	4.47

52ed0f4a3446

5.821 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.08
cold_headwind	3.69
crosswind	3.56
gusty_light	3.44
hot_thin	3.29
storm	4.47

294044197658

5.824 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.08
cold_headwind	3.70
crosswind	3.56
gusty_light	3.44
hot_thin	3.29
storm	4.47

39bd8eeb7f1c

5.827 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.08
cold_headwind	3.70
crosswind	3.56
gusty_light	3.44
hot_thin	3.29
storm	4.47

3bbb3e0e5662

5.835 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.70
crosswind	3.57
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.48

21d55c9ee7a6

5.843 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.71
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.48

c1f4b5cb356e

5.854 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.31
storm	4.49

a479f2c748ae

5.860 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.31
storm	4.50

7abd5ff3fb98

6.030 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.84
crosswind	3.69
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.63

generation 71

b0f1891a8f78

5.806 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.07
cold_headwind	3.68
crosswind	3.55
gusty_light	3.43
hot_thin	3.28
storm	4.45

1b211058c096

5.808 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.07
cold_headwind	3.69
crosswind	3.55
gusty_light	3.43
hot_thin	3.28
storm	4.46

ad8871a2dc40

5.810 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.08
cold_headwind	3.69
crosswind	3.55
gusty_light	3.43
hot_thin	3.28
storm	4.46

be9815d40c08

5.813 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.08
cold_headwind	3.69
crosswind	3.56
gusty_light	3.43
hot_thin	3.28
storm	4.46

d4d7c6c43560

5.820 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.08
cold_headwind	3.69
crosswind	3.56
gusty_light	3.44
hot_thin	3.29
storm	4.47

464b4c982fdb

5.820 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.08
cold_headwind	3.69
crosswind	3.56
gusty_light	3.44
hot_thin	3.29
storm	4.47

52ed0f4a3446

5.821 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.08
cold_headwind	3.69
crosswind	3.56
gusty_light	3.44
hot_thin	3.29
storm	4.47

e5b4e85a44a9

5.823 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.08
cold_headwind	3.69
crosswind	3.56
gusty_light	3.44
hot_thin	3.29
storm	4.47

8980827c3c28

5.826 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.08
cold_headwind	3.70
crosswind	3.56
gusty_light	3.44
hot_thin	3.29
storm	4.47

d321c7b789b2

5.826 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.70
crosswind	3.56
gusty_light	3.44
hot_thin	3.29
storm	4.47

7d2b2deb1c88

5.828 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.08
cold_headwind	3.70
crosswind	3.56
gusty_light	3.44
hot_thin	3.29
storm	4.47

cc513547ce80

5.836 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.71
crosswind	3.57
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.29
storm	4.48

2ab6adb6cced

5.858 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.31
storm	4.50

6a365a0047f0

5.859 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.73
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.50

55e0bf9fcd3f

6.952 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.65
cold_headwind	4.45
crosswind	4.27
gusty_light	4.09
hot_thin	3.90
storm	5.34

ed6efe5dece0

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pla_plus)

calm_warm	3.41
cold_headwind	4.25
crosswind	4.02
gusty_light	3.84
hot_thin	3.64
storm	5.03

generation 70

ad8871a2dc40

5.810 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.08
cold_headwind	3.69
crosswind	3.55
gusty_light	3.43
hot_thin	3.28
storm	4.46

d4d7c6c43560

5.820 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.08
cold_headwind	3.69
crosswind	3.56
gusty_light	3.44
hot_thin	3.29
storm	4.47

e5b4e85a44a9

5.823 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.08
cold_headwind	3.69
crosswind	3.56
gusty_light	3.44
hot_thin	3.29
storm	4.47

7d2b2deb1c88

5.828 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.08
cold_headwind	3.70
crosswind	3.56
gusty_light	3.44
hot_thin	3.29
storm	4.47

8072d6ac6af6

5.829 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.70
crosswind	3.56
gusty_light	3.44
hot_thin	3.29
storm	4.47

70471228a0b9

5.830 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.70
crosswind	3.56
gusty_light	3.44
hot_thin	3.29
storm	4.47

59c6df74bc54

5.830 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.70
crosswind	3.56
gusty_light	3.44
hot_thin	3.29
storm	4.47

a68b1231947f

5.836 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.70
crosswind	3.57
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.48

37c6e50512f9

5.837 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.70
crosswind	3.57
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.29
storm	4.48

4af79ef31726

5.838 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.71
crosswind	3.57
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.48

ca8835cab2a6

5.844 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.71
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.48

fc371fd17d63

5.846 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.71
crosswind	3.57
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.49

b3496a446aee

5.846 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.71
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.49

43a586542b16

5.847 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.49

d262d498a119

5.850 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.49

43e94b992408

5.867 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.59
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.31
storm	4.50

generation 69

inputs

✦ claude designer · scheduled round · 3 design(s) injected, 2 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	4
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	6
mutants (single parent)	2
random immigrants	1

mutation σ 0.030 of gene range
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 69 · scheduled round · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.55..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.4..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.0025..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters (the ROOT thickness)
- tip_thickness_scale: 0.5..1.0 — mid-shaft thickness dip as a fraction of root thickness (1.0 = uniform, no dip)
- arm_cutout_scale: 0.0..0.6 — 3 lightening holes along the shaft, radius as a fraction of the local width there (0 = none)
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.5..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257, g21 6.257, g22 6.172, g23 6.165, g24 6.144, g25 6.144, g26 6.144, g27 6.144, g28 6.144, g29 6.144, g30 6.144, g31 6.144, g32 6.144, g33 6.144, g34 6.144, g35 6.144, g36 6.113, g37 6.113, g38 6.113, g39 6.051, g40 6.048, g41 6.045, g42 6.038, g43 6.035, g44 6.027, g45 6.023, g46 6.023, g47 6.020, g48 6.019, g49 5.996, g50 5.996, g51 5.996, g52 5.992, g53 5.986, g54 5.980, g55 5.972, g56 5.972, g57 5.972, g58 5.964, g59 5.889, g60 5.872, g61 5.855, g62 5.853, g63 5.851, g64 5.851, g65 5.839, g66 5.839, g67 5.830, g68 5.830 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 9 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 5.830 Wh/km-agg, frame 60 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7806, "arm_width_scale": 0.9227, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4701, "arm_thickness": 0.0025, "tip_thickness_scale": 1.0, "arm_cutout_scale": 0.0059, "front_sweep_deg": 36.1572, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.5959, "plate_length_scale": 0.9425, "plate_width_scale": 0.9959, "deck_gap": 0.0376, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.7012, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.6598, "material": 0.054} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.09, "cold_headwind": 3.7, "crosswind": 3.56, "gusty_light": 3.44, "hot_thin": 3.29, "storm": 4.47}
fitness 5.831 Wh/km-agg, frame 60 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7805, "arm_width_scale": 0.9228, "arm_waist_scale": 0.47, "arm_thickness": 0.0025, "tip_thickness_scale": 1.0, "arm_cutout_scale": 0.0064, "front_sweep_deg": 36.2351, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.6731, "plate_length_scale": 0.9424, "plate_width_scale": 0.9958, "deck_gap": 0.0376, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.7032, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.6651, "material": 0.0546} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.09, "cold_headwind": 3.7, "crosswind": 3.57, "gusty_light": 3.44, "hot_thin": 3.29, "storm": 4.47}
fitness 5.837 Wh/km-agg, frame 60 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7806, "arm_width_scale": 0.9227, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4866, "arm_thickness": 0.0025, "tip_thickness_scale": 1.0, "arm_cutout_scale": 0.0058, "front_sweep_deg": 36.1573, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.5965, "plate_length_scale": 0.9423, "plate_width_scale": 0.9959, "deck_gap": 0.0376, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.9116, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.6597, "material": 0.054} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.09, "cold_headwind": 3.71, "crosswind": 3.57, "gusty_light": 3.45, "hot_thin": 3.29, "storm": 4.48}
fitness 5.838 Wh/km-agg, frame 60 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7802, "arm_width_scale": 0.9211, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4694, "arm_thickness": 0.0025, "tip_thickness_scale": 1.0, "arm_cutout_scale": 0.0053, "front_sweep_deg": 36.1605, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.1347, "plate_length_scale": 0.9676, "plate_width_scale": 1.0007, "deck_gap": 0.0379, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.4278, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.6607, "material": 0.0541} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.09, "cold_headwind": 3.71, "crosswind": 3.57, "gusty_light": 3.45, "hot_thin": 3.3, "storm": 4.48}
fitness 5.839 Wh/km-agg, frame 60 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7805, "arm_width_scale": 0.9211, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4693, "arm_thickness": 0.0025, "tip_thickness_scale": 1.0, "arm_cutout_scale": 0.0058, "front_sweep_deg": 36.1546, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.1347, "plate_length_scale": 0.9676, "plate_width_scale": 1.0007, "deck_gap": 0.0379, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.4282, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.6597, "material": 0.0541} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.09, "cold_headwind": 3.71, "crosswind": 3.57, "gusty_light": 3.45, "hot_thin": 3.3, "storm": 4.48}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g55 `75e5d886` fitness 6.163 Wh/km-agg — was: The one prior width-cut attempt (g54, width 0.62) changed width, waist, and thickness together and lost, so the width-vs-drag trade was never isolated; this holds arm_length, waist, sweep, plate scale, deck_gap, wedge, and material exactly at elite values and changes only width (down to 0.60, well below elite's 0.77) paired with a large thickness increase (0.0062) as pure cross-section stiffness c
- g55 `b8d03e14` fitness 6.024 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm sits pack-limited and flat (4.59-4.60) across the entire elite family, so remaining gains must come from cutting the other five scenarios' drag rather than mass, and battery_wedge_deg is an almost entirely unexploited gene bound (elite sits at 0.23-0.35 of a 0-15 range) that was never cleanly tested on the exact winning short-arm PA12-CF geometry (every prior wedge test bundled it with a wea
- g56 `5ed32770` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: Every stiffening attempt so far leaned on mid-shaft taper plus thickness and the one no-taper test (g55) failed tip deflection because it didn't compensate with real width, so this pivots to a wide, untapered 'ribbon' arm (width pushed to 1.20, waist relieved to 1.05 for near-constant cross-section) carrying stiffness through width instead of thickness, letting arm_thickness drop to 0.0030 while k
- g56 `d3f2fb06` fitness 6.051 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior carbon test just transplanted the pa12_cf floor-thickness recipe onto carbon and lost by a wide margin, never exploiting carbon's actual two advantages -- no printed-material thickness floor and a better stiffness-to-weight ratio -- so this pivots to genuinely thin (0.0026 m) carbon arms near the true minimum, aggressively tapered (waist 0.45) with moderate width (0.95) for root streng
- g56 `f8b8a58e` fitness 5.973 Wh/km-agg — was: The failed vector was the current top elite's exact geometry with deck_gap cut to 0.027, which put the rotor disk too close to the deck/battery stack; restoring deck_gap to the elite's proven 0.0381 while keeping every other gene identical removes that single constraint violation without touching the validated aerodynamic/mass tradeoffs.
- g57 `d5b8430e` fitness 6.017 Wh/km-agg — was: arm_waist_scale has sat frozen at ~0.556 across every elite for the entire plateau despite a floor of 0.4, meaning the mid-shaft taper lever was never actually pushed -- this keeps the exact winning PA12-CF short-arm geometry unchanged except deepening the waist cut to 0.42 (near its bound) with a compensating thickness bump to 0.0050 to hold stiffness margin, isolating unexploited drag headroom r
- g57 `dd8058c9` fitness 6.131 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior sweep-opening test bundled it with longer arms and lost, so sweep was never isolated on the actual winning short-arm geometry; this holds arm_length/width/waist/thickness/material/deck_gap/wedge exactly at elite values and opens front/rear sweep to 42/48 deg (offsets of +10.6/+12 from stock) with plate_length/width grown to 1.22/1.24 per the offset-to-plate-growth rule, testing whether
- g57 `de6b8ddc` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: The failure was rotor-disk tip overlap from pairing near-stock arm_length_scale (0.8) with a wide, untapered arm (width 1.0, waist 0.75) that pushes prop tips outward without added radial reach, so this keeps the wide/untapered-arm stiffness concept and PETG material but lengthens the arm to 1.0 for genuine tip clearance and nudges rear sweep/plate scale slightly to stay within the offset-to-plate
- g58 `e09e735b` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: The winning family has always bought arm stiffness margin by thickening the arm itself while plate_thickness_scale sits pinned at pa12_cf's 0.80 floor with 0.5-1.6 of headroom never touched -- this keeps the exact winning short-arm geometry but shifts the stiffness budget to the deck plates (1.15) so the arm can go thinner (0.0035) with a touch less taper (waist 0.58) for a net mass/drag win untes
- g59 `939e58c1` fitness 5.889 Wh/km-agg — was: The rejected carbon-plate design was sound except plate_thickness_scale 0.55 produced 1.1mm webs against carbon's 1.2mm floor, so this raises plate_thickness_scale to 0.65 (real margin above the failing point) while holding every other gene -- including the untested low-taper arm and near-stock sweep -- exactly as designed.
- g59 `acb48776` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pet_cf)) — was: PET-CF has only ever been flown bundled with long arms (g51 1.05 scale, g53 1.05 scale), both of which lost by 0.6-0.7 Wh/km-agg and left material itself unjudged, exactly the confound that cf_plate isolation cleared in g53; this transplants the unchanged winning short-arm pa12_cf recipe onto pet_cf (material 0.40) with plate_thickness_scale held at the elite's already-compliant 0.8238, testing pe
- g59 `e584eb50` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: Every past width change moved only one direction (down, to 0.60-0.62) and always lost 0.19 Wh/km-agg, while the two attempts to raise width instead confounded it with an untapered waist and extreme 1.2 scale and failed on tip deflection -- this isolates a moderate width increase (0.92, well short of that failed 1.2 extreme) with the elite's own proven taper (waist 0.54) unchanged, using the added 
- g60 `11a813e1` fitness 5.926 Wh/km-agg — was: Battery_wedge_deg has sat almost untouched (0.23-0.35 of a 0-15 range) and every prior clean wedge attempt was bundled with a weaker arm or run on pa12_cf, never on the actual current cf_plate champion recipe; this holds the winning geometry exactly and pushes wedge to a moderate 6deg to isolate whether reduced frontal area beats the added CG-shift cost on the family that is actually winning.
- g60 `ac35c1dc` fitness 6.019 Wh/km-agg — was: Width cuts to 0.60-0.62 always lost on printed materials and the one aggressive width+waist combo on pa12_cf failed tip deflection, but that confound was never isolated on cf_plate, which has a strictly better stiffness-to-weight ratio; this cuts width to 0.65 while relieving the taper (waist 0.60) and adding a modest thickness bump for margin, testing whether carbon alone can survive the narrow-a
- g63 `0a85bf0a` fitness 5.911 Wh/km-agg — was: if cutout holes and a mid-shaft taper each cut mass in isolation, combining mild versions of both on the winning geometry should compound the hot_thin/mass gain further than either alone, so this pairs cutout_scale 0.15 with tip_thickness_scale 0.85 (both moderate, not pushed toward their individual extremes) plus a relieved waist (0.55) and a thickness bump (0.0029) specifically to dodge the flag
- g63 `58619732` fitness 5.916 Wh/km-agg — was: arm_cutout_scale has sat at 0.0 through the entire cf_plate elite lineage despite carbon's superior stiffness-to-weight ratio giving it the most margin to absorb stress risers, so this adds three moderate lightening holes (0.28, safely below the ~0.4 stress-concentration danger zone) to the exact winning short-arm geometry with a small thickness bump (0.0026->0.0030) for margin, leaving the taper 
- g63 `6a61b37c` fitness 5.972 Wh/km-agg — was: tip_thickness_scale has also sat frozen at 1.0 (no mid-shaft dip) through the entire elite lineage even though bending stress is lowest at mid-shaft, so this pushes it to 0.62 to trim mass where it costs least structurally, compensates with a thicker root (0.0026->0.0032) for margin at the tongue/motor-mount stations, and relieves the waist (0.4725->0.65) so the narrowing and thinning levers don't
- g65 `40a79371` fitness 6.415 Wh/km-agg — was: Every current elite and nearly every prior test relies on the same stiffening trick -- aggressive mid-shaft taper (waist ~0.47-0.60) on a near-floor-thickness shaft -- and every attempt to relax that taper without heavy compensation has failed tip deflection, so this abandons taper entirely (waist 0.95, effectively untapered) and instead buys stiffness from a wider, thicker 'stout beam' cross-sect
- g65 `e8accf07` fitness 6.513 Wh/km-agg — was: The first failure was driven by arm length outgrowing the plate, not sweep (sweep matched the elite's near-stock values) -- this keeps the exact long-arm/lower-disk-loading concept but grows plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale further (to 1.18/1.15, beyond the prior 1.05/1.03) to match arm_length_scale's own offset from stock, not just the sweep offset, so the tongue bolts stay seated.
- g66 `92aee523` fitness 5.904 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior width cut spent its compensation budget on arm thickness or taper and lost, but plate_thickness_scale has 0.5-1.6 of headroom that was only ever tested paired with a weaker pa12_cf arm; this cuts width more aggressively (0.92->0.78) than any surviving test while relieving the taper and instead buying the missing stiffness margin from a real plate_thickness_scale bump (0.66->0.85) on th

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 17, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 34, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 17, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 38, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 27, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 42, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 10, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 11, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.01 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.20 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.60 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.19 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.15 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.52 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pla_plus)": 2, "arm overstressed (pet_cf)": 3, "arm overstressed (asa)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

Propose exactly 3 NEW genome vectors that are meaningfully DIFFERENT from the elites and from each other — design hypotheses, not small perturbations. Build on what the trajectory and your earlier proposals' outcomes show worked; avoid repeating what failed. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates); tip_thickness_scale below 1.0 thins the MIDDLE of the shaft, not the tip itself (full thickness stays at the tongue and the motor mount, a bump-shaped dip in between) -- the structural check now covers the whole shaft station-by-station, so a design can fail on a mid-shaft station even when the root looks fine; and arm_cutout_scale places 3 lightening holes along the shaft sized off the LOCAL width there -- values above ~0.4 usually start failing on stress concentration at the holes, especially stacked with a low tip_thickness_scale in the same region.

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "tip_thickness_scale": <float>, "arm_cutout_scale": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate eedcf261 — cf_plate's plate_thickness_scale has huge untouched headroom (elite sits at 0.66 of a 1.6 cap) and has never been used to fund BOTH mass-cutting arm levers at once, so this bumps plate_thickness_scale to 1.05 to buy structural margin for a real cutout (0.32) plus a real mid-shaft taper (tip_thickness_scale 0.70) simultaneously, relieving waist to 0.65 so the taper/holes/narrowing don't stack in thflew at 5.971 Wh/km
candidate 001d6d39 — The plate-width shrink failed on web thickness at 0.95, so this replaces it with an orthogonal mass-cut on the exact winning geometry -- moderate lightening holes (cutout 0.18, safely below the ~0.4 stress-riser zone) with a small thickness bump for margin -- while plates stay pinned at the elite's proven 0.9425/0.9959.flew at 5.870 Wh/km
candidate 099a8e46 — The prior front-sweep cut to 33deg overlapped rotor disks because the short/wide arm gave no extra radial clearance, so this takes a smaller sweep step (34.5deg) and pairs it with a longer arm (0.85 scale) plus grown plate scales (0.98/1.02) for the tip clearance and tongue-bolt seating that were missing before.flew at 5.874 Wh/km
candidate d967f4dd — rejected pre-flight (plate web too thin (plate_main 1.07 mm, stock 1.90 mm)) — plate_width_scale has sat pinned near 1.0 through the entire elite lineage despite a legal floor of 0.95 for web integrity, so this cuts it to exactly 0.95 on the unchanged winning geometry to shrink the crosswind side profile -- a plate lever that's never been isolated even though crosswind explicitly rewards a small side profile.
candidate 7f0ad99d — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — every prior sweep test moved sweeps OUTWARD from stock and lost, but no test has isolated moving front_sweep_deg back IN toward stock (31.4) alone while holding rear sweep at its elite value, so this drops front_sweep to 33.0 -- still needing no plate growth since it's moving toward stock, not away -- to test whether a slimmer nose profile cuts cold_headwind drag without the plate/tongue risk that

e5b4e85a44a9

5.823 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.08
cold_headwind	3.69
crosswind	3.56
gusty_light	3.44
hot_thin	3.29
storm	4.47

70471228a0b9

5.830 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.70
crosswind	3.56
gusty_light	3.44
hot_thin	3.29
storm	4.47

fd9db8a3f7d2

5.831 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.70
crosswind	3.57
gusty_light	3.44
hot_thin	3.29
storm	4.47

3b5b2e327cf2

5.832 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.70
crosswind	3.57
gusty_light	3.44
hot_thin	3.29
storm	4.48

4af79ef31726

5.838 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.71
crosswind	3.57
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.48

e516d707feab

5.839 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.71
crosswind	3.57
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.48

0b1d86c6aa42

5.841 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.71
crosswind	3.57
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.48

3270363f6593

5.841 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.71
crosswind	3.57
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.48

b3496a446aee

5.846 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.71
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.49

51522374184c

5.849 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.49

ed3f94b63cfd

5.851 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.71
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.49

001d6d39ba52

5.870 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.11
cold_headwind	3.73
crosswind	3.59
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.31
storm	4.50

099a8e466c32

5.874 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.11
cold_headwind	3.73
crosswind	3.60
gusty_light	3.47
hot_thin	3.31
storm	4.51

1f040255aaee

5.882 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.11
cold_headwind	3.73
crosswind	3.60
gusty_light	3.47
hot_thin	3.32
storm	4.51

eedcf2616432

5.971 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.79
crosswind	3.65
gusty_light	3.52
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.58

2949b0f95352

∞ wh/km agg

arm resonance with rotor 1P

calm_warm	4.12
cold_headwind	5.14
crosswind	4.84
gusty_light	4.61
hot_thin	4.38
storm	6.07

generation 68

70471228a0b9

5.830 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.70
crosswind	3.56
gusty_light	3.44
hot_thin	3.29
storm	4.47

fd9db8a3f7d2

5.831 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.70
crosswind	3.57
gusty_light	3.44
hot_thin	3.29
storm	4.47

b9875b5864b2

5.837 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.71
crosswind	3.57
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.29
storm	4.48

8ac4c8e23d62

5.838 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.71
crosswind	3.57
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.48

e516d707feab

5.839 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.71
crosswind	3.57
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.48

a07e8f005b6f

5.841 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.71
crosswind	3.57
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.48

889c3dc92a7a

5.845 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.71
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.48

b3496a446aee

5.846 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.71
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.49

449a4f285d98

5.851 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.71
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.49

cb4ad2e95f2e

5.858 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.50

36204ad3ba74

5.862 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.73
crosswind	3.59
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.31
storm	4.50

b42788b5adfc

5.867 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.73
crosswind	3.59
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.31
storm	4.50

142d7d88f8a4

5.868 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.11
cold_headwind	3.73
crosswind	3.59
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.31
storm	4.50

28dd2d3b16b3

5.868 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.11
cold_headwind	3.73
crosswind	3.59
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.31
storm	4.50

3eef29c48287

6.831 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.58
cold_headwind	4.38
crosswind	4.20
gusty_light	4.02
hot_thin	3.82
storm	5.24

f5a8707ad580

6.935 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.65
cold_headwind	4.43
crosswind	4.27
gusty_light	4.08
hot_thin	3.89
storm	5.32

generation 67

70471228a0b9

5.830 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.70
crosswind	3.56
gusty_light	3.44
hot_thin	3.29
storm	4.47

8ac4c8e23d62

5.838 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.71
crosswind	3.57
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.48

ec53169beaa7

5.839 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.71
crosswind	3.57
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.48

2416283932cc

5.841 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.71
crosswind	3.57
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.48

a3dcb10cc229

5.843 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.71
crosswind	3.57
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.48

186e16302e46

5.844 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.71
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.48

9d4f63731087

5.854 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.59
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.49

8fe420d6e646

5.855 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.49

f0941e4636c7

5.863 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.59
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.31
storm	4.50

08748e03c0bf

5.864 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.59
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.31
storm	4.50

b740ab095b07

5.880 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.11
cold_headwind	3.74
crosswind	3.60
gusty_light	3.47
hot_thin	3.31
storm	4.51

6152e0848c2f

5.882 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.11
cold_headwind	3.74
crosswind	3.60
gusty_light	3.47
hot_thin	3.32
storm	4.51

5d33319a7e2f

6.916 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.64
cold_headwind	4.42
crosswind	4.25
gusty_light	4.07
hot_thin	3.88
storm	5.31

9fac758fa5ab

6.947 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.65
cold_headwind	4.45
crosswind	4.26
gusty_light	4.08
hot_thin	3.89
storm	5.34

251599b0e1b2

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (petg)

calm_warm	3.82
cold_headwind	4.77
crosswind	4.51
gusty_light	4.29
hot_thin	4.06
storm	5.63

9f1ae9c78513

∞ wh/km agg

arm overstressed (pet_cf)

calm_warm	3.25
cold_headwind	3.93
crosswind	3.78
gusty_light	3.63
hot_thin	3.46
storm	4.72

generation 66

inputs

✦ claude designer · scheduled round · 1 design(s) injected, 4 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	4
claude-designed	1
crossovers (tournament parents)	9
mutants (single parent)	2

mutation σ 0.030 of gene range
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 66 · scheduled round · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.55..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.4..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.0025..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters (the ROOT thickness)
- tip_thickness_scale: 0.5..1.0 — mid-shaft thickness dip as a fraction of root thickness (1.0 = uniform, no dip)
- arm_cutout_scale: 0.0..0.6 — 3 lightening holes along the shaft, radius as a fraction of the local width there (0 = none)
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.5..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257, g21 6.257, g22 6.172, g23 6.165, g24 6.144, g25 6.144, g26 6.144, g27 6.144, g28 6.144, g29 6.144, g30 6.144, g31 6.144, g32 6.144, g33 6.144, g34 6.144, g35 6.144, g36 6.113, g37 6.113, g38 6.113, g39 6.051, g40 6.048, g41 6.045, g42 6.038, g43 6.035, g44 6.027, g45 6.023, g46 6.023, g47 6.020, g48 6.019, g49 5.996, g50 5.996, g51 5.996, g52 5.992, g53 5.986, g54 5.980, g55 5.972, g56 5.972, g57 5.972, g58 5.964, g59 5.889, g60 5.872, g61 5.855, g62 5.853, g63 5.851, g64 5.851, g65 5.839 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 6 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 5.839 Wh/km-agg, frame 60 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7805, "arm_width_scale": 0.9211, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4693, "arm_thickness": 0.0025, "tip_thickness_scale": 1.0, "arm_cutout_scale": 0.0058, "front_sweep_deg": 36.1546, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.1347, "plate_length_scale": 0.9676, "plate_width_scale": 1.0007, "deck_gap": 0.0379, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.4282, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.6597, "material": 0.0541} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.09, "cold_headwind": 3.71, "crosswind": 3.57, "gusty_light": 3.45, "hot_thin": 3.3, "storm": 4.48}
fitness 5.842 Wh/km-agg, frame 60 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7791, "arm_width_scale": 0.8963, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4595, "arm_thickness": 0.0025, "tip_thickness_scale": 1.0, "arm_cutout_scale": 0.0, "front_sweep_deg": 37.1116, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.1308, "plate_length_scale": 0.9696, "plate_width_scale": 1.014, "deck_gap": 0.038, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.8154, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.6544, "material": 0.0403} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.09, "cold_headwind": 3.71, "crosswind": 3.57, "gusty_light": 3.45, "hot_thin": 3.3, "storm": 4.48}
fitness 5.845 Wh/km-agg, frame 60 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8084, "arm_width_scale": 0.9114, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4283, "arm_thickness": 0.0026, "tip_thickness_scale": 1.0, "arm_cutout_scale": 0.0, "front_sweep_deg": 37.1117, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.1847, "plate_length_scale": 0.9464, "plate_width_scale": 1.0302, "deck_gap": 0.0388, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.5323, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.6302, "material": 0.0237} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.09, "cold_headwind": 3.71, "crosswind": 3.58, "gusty_light": 3.45, "hot_thin": 3.3, "storm": 4.49}
fitness 5.849 Wh/km-agg, frame 60 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.818, "arm_width_scale": 0.9115, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4722, "arm_thickness": 0.0025, "tip_thickness_scale": 1.0, "arm_cutout_scale": 0.0093, "front_sweep_deg": 36.8001, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.4987, "plate_length_scale": 0.9686, "plate_width_scale": 0.9985, "deck_gap": 0.038, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.3974, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.65, "material": 0.0821} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.09, "cold_headwind": 3.72, "crosswind": 3.58, "gusty_light": 3.45, "hot_thin": 3.3, "storm": 4.49}
fitness 5.851 Wh/km-agg, frame 61 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8, "arm_width_scale": 0.9114, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4723, "arm_thickness": 0.0026, "tip_thickness_scale": 1.0, "arm_cutout_scale": 0.0092, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.4998, "plate_length_scale": 0.9686, "plate_width_scale": 0.9985, "deck_gap": 0.038, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.4028, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.65, "material": 0.0824} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.09, "cold_headwind": 3.72, "crosswind": 3.58, "gusty_light": 3.45, "hot_thin": 3.3, "storm": 4.49}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g55 `34b02229` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: Every elite and nearly every prior pivot has stiffened the arm the same way -- moderate thickness plus a strong mid-shaft taper (waist ~0.55) -- and mass has stalled at the 65g floor for that recipe; this abandons the taper strategy entirely for a thin, narrow, untapered shaft (waist pushed to 0.95, near no narrowing) that relies on constant cross-section rather than thickness or taper for stiffne
- g55 `75e5d886` fitness 6.163 Wh/km-agg — was: The one prior width-cut attempt (g54, width 0.62) changed width, waist, and thickness together and lost, so the width-vs-drag trade was never isolated; this holds arm_length, waist, sweep, plate scale, deck_gap, wedge, and material exactly at elite values and changes only width (down to 0.60, well below elite's 0.77) paired with a large thickness increase (0.0062) as pure cross-section stiffness c
- g55 `b8d03e14` fitness 6.024 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm sits pack-limited and flat (4.59-4.60) across the entire elite family, so remaining gains must come from cutting the other five scenarios' drag rather than mass, and battery_wedge_deg is an almost entirely unexploited gene bound (elite sits at 0.23-0.35 of a 0-15 range) that was never cleanly tested on the exact winning short-arm PA12-CF geometry (every prior wedge test bundled it with a wea
- g56 `5ed32770` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: Every stiffening attempt so far leaned on mid-shaft taper plus thickness and the one no-taper test (g55) failed tip deflection because it didn't compensate with real width, so this pivots to a wide, untapered 'ribbon' arm (width pushed to 1.20, waist relieved to 1.05 for near-constant cross-section) carrying stiffness through width instead of thickness, letting arm_thickness drop to 0.0030 while k
- g56 `d3f2fb06` fitness 6.051 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior carbon test just transplanted the pa12_cf floor-thickness recipe onto carbon and lost by a wide margin, never exploiting carbon's actual two advantages -- no printed-material thickness floor and a better stiffness-to-weight ratio -- so this pivots to genuinely thin (0.0026 m) carbon arms near the true minimum, aggressively tapered (waist 0.45) with moderate width (0.95) for root streng
- g56 `f8b8a58e` fitness 5.973 Wh/km-agg — was: The failed vector was the current top elite's exact geometry with deck_gap cut to 0.027, which put the rotor disk too close to the deck/battery stack; restoring deck_gap to the elite's proven 0.0381 while keeping every other gene identical removes that single constraint violation without touching the validated aerodynamic/mass tradeoffs.
- g57 `d5b8430e` fitness 6.017 Wh/km-agg — was: arm_waist_scale has sat frozen at ~0.556 across every elite for the entire plateau despite a floor of 0.4, meaning the mid-shaft taper lever was never actually pushed -- this keeps the exact winning PA12-CF short-arm geometry unchanged except deepening the waist cut to 0.42 (near its bound) with a compensating thickness bump to 0.0050 to hold stiffness margin, isolating unexploited drag headroom r
- g57 `dd8058c9` fitness 6.131 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior sweep-opening test bundled it with longer arms and lost, so sweep was never isolated on the actual winning short-arm geometry; this holds arm_length/width/waist/thickness/material/deck_gap/wedge exactly at elite values and opens front/rear sweep to 42/48 deg (offsets of +10.6/+12 from stock) with plate_length/width grown to 1.22/1.24 per the offset-to-plate-growth rule, testing whether
- g57 `de6b8ddc` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: The failure was rotor-disk tip overlap from pairing near-stock arm_length_scale (0.8) with a wide, untapered arm (width 1.0, waist 0.75) that pushes prop tips outward without added radial reach, so this keeps the wide/untapered-arm stiffness concept and PETG material but lengthens the arm to 1.0 for genuine tip clearance and nudges rear sweep/plate scale slightly to stay within the offset-to-plate
- g58 `e09e735b` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: The winning family has always bought arm stiffness margin by thickening the arm itself while plate_thickness_scale sits pinned at pa12_cf's 0.80 floor with 0.5-1.6 of headroom never touched -- this keeps the exact winning short-arm geometry but shifts the stiffness budget to the deck plates (1.15) so the arm can go thinner (0.0035) with a touch less taper (waist 0.58) for a net mass/drag win untes
- g59 `939e58c1` fitness 5.889 Wh/km-agg — was: The rejected carbon-plate design was sound except plate_thickness_scale 0.55 produced 1.1mm webs against carbon's 1.2mm floor, so this raises plate_thickness_scale to 0.65 (real margin above the failing point) while holding every other gene -- including the untested low-taper arm and near-stock sweep -- exactly as designed.
- g59 `acb48776` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pet_cf)) — was: PET-CF has only ever been flown bundled with long arms (g51 1.05 scale, g53 1.05 scale), both of which lost by 0.6-0.7 Wh/km-agg and left material itself unjudged, exactly the confound that cf_plate isolation cleared in g53; this transplants the unchanged winning short-arm pa12_cf recipe onto pet_cf (material 0.40) with plate_thickness_scale held at the elite's already-compliant 0.8238, testing pe
- g59 `e584eb50` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: Every past width change moved only one direction (down, to 0.60-0.62) and always lost 0.19 Wh/km-agg, while the two attempts to raise width instead confounded it with an untapered waist and extreme 1.2 scale and failed on tip deflection -- this isolates a moderate width increase (0.92, well short of that failed 1.2 extreme) with the elite's own proven taper (waist 0.54) unchanged, using the added 
- g60 `11a813e1` fitness 5.926 Wh/km-agg — was: Battery_wedge_deg has sat almost untouched (0.23-0.35 of a 0-15 range) and every prior clean wedge attempt was bundled with a weaker arm or run on pa12_cf, never on the actual current cf_plate champion recipe; this holds the winning geometry exactly and pushes wedge to a moderate 6deg to isolate whether reduced frontal area beats the added CG-shift cost on the family that is actually winning.
- g60 `ac35c1dc` fitness 6.019 Wh/km-agg — was: Width cuts to 0.60-0.62 always lost on printed materials and the one aggressive width+waist combo on pa12_cf failed tip deflection, but that confound was never isolated on cf_plate, which has a strictly better stiffness-to-weight ratio; this cuts width to 0.65 while relieving the taper (waist 0.60) and adding a modest thickness bump for margin, testing whether carbon alone can survive the narrow-a
- g63 `0a85bf0a` fitness 5.911 Wh/km-agg — was: if cutout holes and a mid-shaft taper each cut mass in isolation, combining mild versions of both on the winning geometry should compound the hot_thin/mass gain further than either alone, so this pairs cutout_scale 0.15 with tip_thickness_scale 0.85 (both moderate, not pushed toward their individual extremes) plus a relieved waist (0.55) and a thickness bump (0.0029) specifically to dodge the flag
- g63 `58619732` fitness 5.916 Wh/km-agg — was: arm_cutout_scale has sat at 0.0 through the entire cf_plate elite lineage despite carbon's superior stiffness-to-weight ratio giving it the most margin to absorb stress risers, so this adds three moderate lightening holes (0.28, safely below the ~0.4 stress-concentration danger zone) to the exact winning short-arm geometry with a small thickness bump (0.0026->0.0030) for margin, leaving the taper 
- g63 `6a61b37c` fitness 5.972 Wh/km-agg — was: tip_thickness_scale has also sat frozen at 1.0 (no mid-shaft dip) through the entire elite lineage even though bending stress is lowest at mid-shaft, so this pushes it to 0.62 to trim mass where it costs least structurally, compensates with a thicker root (0.0026->0.0032) for margin at the tongue/motor-mount stations, and relieves the waist (0.4725->0.65) so the narrowing and thinning levers don't
- g65 `40a79371` fitness 6.415 Wh/km-agg — was: Every current elite and nearly every prior test relies on the same stiffening trick -- aggressive mid-shaft taper (waist ~0.47-0.60) on a near-floor-thickness shaft -- and every attempt to relax that taper without heavy compensation has failed tip deflection, so this abandons taper entirely (waist 0.95, effectively untapered) and instead buys stiffness from a wider, thicker 'stout beam' cross-sect
- g65 `e8accf07` fitness 6.513 Wh/km-agg — was: The first failure was driven by arm length outgrowing the plate, not sweep (sweep matched the elite's near-stock values) -- this keeps the exact long-arm/lower-disk-loading concept but grows plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale further (to 1.18/1.15, beyond the prior 1.05/1.03) to match arm_length_scale's own offset from stock, not just the sweep offset, so the tongue bolts stay seated.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 17, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 34, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 17, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 38, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 27, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 42, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 10, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 10, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.01 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.20 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.60 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.19 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.15 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.52 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pla_plus)": 2, "arm overstressed (pet_cf)": 2, "arm overstressed (asa)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

Propose exactly 3 NEW genome vectors that are meaningfully DIFFERENT from the elites and from each other — design hypotheses, not small perturbations. Build on what the trajectory and your earlier proposals' outcomes show worked; avoid repeating what failed. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates); tip_thickness_scale below 1.0 thins the MIDDLE of the shaft, not the tip itself (full thickness stays at the tongue and the motor mount, a bump-shaped dip in between) -- the structural check now covers the whole shaft station-by-station, so a design can fail on a mid-shaft station even when the root looks fine; and arm_cutout_scale places 3 lightening holes along the shaft sized off the LOCAL width there -- values above ~0.4 usually start failing on stress concentration at the holes, especially stacked with a low tip_thickness_scale in the same region.

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "tip_thickness_scale": <float>, "arm_cutout_scale": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 92aee523 — Every prior width cut spent its compensation budget on arm thickness or taper and lost, but plate_thickness_scale has 0.5-1.6 of headroom that was only ever tested paired with a weaker pa12_cf arm; this cuts width more aggressively (0.92->0.78) than any surviving test while relieving the taper and instead buying the missing stiffness margin from a real plate_thickness_scale bump (0.66->0.85) on thflew at 5.904 Wh/km
candidate a8b68624 — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Every arm_length test has sat at 0.78-0.82 near the floor and shorter arms deflect far less under load (deflection scales with length cubed), so this pushes length to the true floor (0.75) and reallocates that extra stiffness margin into a meaningful width cut (0.92->0.85) that prior width-cut attempts could never afford at longer arm lengths.
candidate bbdab3f6 — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Every cutout attempt so far (g63) stacked the holes onto the current 0.78-0.82 arm length and lost, but a floor-length 0.75 arm carries much lower bending stress per unit length, so this pairs the untested length floor with a moderate cutout (0.25) and a small thickness/taper relief for margin, testing whether the length-driven stiffness surplus is what was missing for lightening holes to pay off.
candidate 1abc7333 — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Both prescreen failures paired the width/cutout experiment with arm_length_scale cut to 0.75, which crosses the tip-clearance line at these sweeps (the top elite itself sits at 0.78 and clears fine); this restores arm_length_scale to the proven 0.78 floor and isolates a moderate width cut (0.85, well short of the 0.60-0.62 values that always failed on printed materials) with waist/cutout held at e
candidate d1e297f8 — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Same tip-clearance fix applied to the second failed vector: keep arm_length_scale at the elite's safe 0.78 instead of 0.75, restore width to the elite's proven 0.9211, and relieve the waist slightly (0.50) with a thickness bump (0.0027) to give the 0.25 cutout holes stress margin, isolating whether moderate lightening holes cut mass without the confound of a too-short arm.

ec53169beaa7

5.839 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.71
crosswind	3.57
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.48

2416283932cc

5.841 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.71
crosswind	3.57
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.48

1fc3ac458e49

5.842 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.71
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.48

d7374e00b9ed

5.842 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.71
crosswind	3.57
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.48

a8a8640d9a4e

5.849 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.49

13cc64e0b6dc

5.851 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.49

8496623657c2

5.854 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.49

4c2f11c1e6dd

5.854 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.49

3f605bcdd0b2

5.855 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.31
storm	4.49

591295fbf339

5.856 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.49

6397c5a46e82

5.859 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.59
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.50

8b35718bb6e2

5.859 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.31
storm	4.50

3ab0dc698a33

5.870 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.73
crosswind	3.59
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.31
storm	4.50

8a55cf122548

5.877 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.11
cold_headwind	3.73
crosswind	3.60
gusty_light	3.47
hot_thin	3.32
storm	4.51

fd76a7edcf26

5.900 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.12
cold_headwind	3.75
crosswind	3.61
gusty_light	3.48
hot_thin	3.33
storm	4.53

92aee5230f2c

5.904 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.12
cold_headwind	3.75
crosswind	3.61
gusty_light	3.49
hot_thin	3.33
storm	4.53

generation 65

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 2 design(s) injected, 3 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	4
claude-designed	2
crossovers (tournament parents)	5
pivot crosses (far parent)	5

mutation σ 0.030 of gene range
pivot σ 0.048 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 65 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.55..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.4..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.0025..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters (the ROOT thickness)
- tip_thickness_scale: 0.5..1.0 — mid-shaft thickness dip as a fraction of root thickness (1.0 = uniform, no dip)
- arm_cutout_scale: 0.0..0.6 — 3 lightening holes along the shaft, radius as a fraction of the local width there (0 = none)
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.5..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257, g21 6.257, g22 6.172, g23 6.165, g24 6.144, g25 6.144, g26 6.144, g27 6.144, g28 6.144, g29 6.144, g30 6.144, g31 6.144, g32 6.144, g33 6.144, g34 6.144, g35 6.144, g36 6.113, g37 6.113, g38 6.113, g39 6.051, g40 6.048, g41 6.045, g42 6.038, g43 6.035, g44 6.027, g45 6.023, g46 6.023, g47 6.020, g48 6.019, g49 5.996, g50 5.996, g51 5.996, g52 5.992, g53 5.986, g54 5.980, g55 5.972, g56 5.972, g57 5.972, g58 5.964, g59 5.889, g60 5.872, g61 5.855, g62 5.853, g63 5.851, g64 5.851 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 5 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 5.851 Wh/km-agg, frame 61 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8, "arm_width_scale": 0.9114, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4723, "arm_thickness": 0.0026, "tip_thickness_scale": 1.0, "arm_cutout_scale": 0.0092, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.4998, "plate_length_scale": 0.9686, "plate_width_scale": 0.9985, "deck_gap": 0.038, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.4028, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.65, "material": 0.0824} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.09, "cold_headwind": 3.72, "crosswind": 3.58, "gusty_light": 3.45, "hot_thin": 3.3, "storm": 4.49}
fitness 5.853 Wh/km-agg, frame 61 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8, "arm_width_scale": 0.92, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4725, "arm_thickness": 0.0026, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.5, "plate_length_scale": 0.9686, "plate_width_scale": 0.9984, "deck_gap": 0.038, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.3, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.65, "material": 0.0824, "tip_thickness_scale": 1.0, "arm_cutout_scale": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.1, "cold_headwind": 3.72, "crosswind": 3.58, "gusty_light": 3.46, "hot_thin": 3.3, "storm": 4.49}
fitness 5.853 Wh/km-agg, frame 61 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8, "arm_width_scale": 0.92, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4725, "arm_thickness": 0.0026, "tip_thickness_scale": 1.0, "arm_cutout_scale": 0.0, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.5, "plate_length_scale": 0.9686, "plate_width_scale": 0.9984, "deck_gap": 0.038, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.3, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.65, "material": 0.0824} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.1, "cold_headwind": 3.72, "crosswind": 3.58, "gusty_light": 3.46, "hot_thin": 3.3, "storm": 4.49}
fitness 5.853 Wh/km-agg, frame 61 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8003, "arm_width_scale": 0.92, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4725, "arm_thickness": 0.0026, "tip_thickness_scale": 1.0, "arm_cutout_scale": 0.0, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.5, "plate_length_scale": 0.9686, "plate_width_scale": 0.9984, "deck_gap": 0.038, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.3, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.65, "material": 0.0824} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.1, "cold_headwind": 3.72, "crosswind": 3.58, "gusty_light": 3.46, "hot_thin": 3.3, "storm": 4.49}
fitness 5.854 Wh/km-agg, frame 61 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.799, "arm_width_scale": 0.92, "arm_waist_scale": 0.48, "arm_thickness": 0.0026, "tip_thickness_scale": 1.0, "arm_cutout_scale": 0.0, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.5368, "plate_length_scale": 0.9686, "plate_width_scale": 0.9998, "deck_gap": 0.038, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.3, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.65, "material": 0.0801} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.1, "cold_headwind": 3.72, "crosswind": 3.58, "gusty_light": 3.46, "hot_thin": 3.3, "storm": 4.49}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g54 `345feac1` fitness 6.829 Wh/km-agg — was: The long-arm carbon build for lower disk loading failed because its 7deg rear-sweep offset from stock outgrew the unchanged 1.0 plate scale and dropped the tongue bolts off the plate, so this keeps the same long-arm/opened-sweep concept but grows plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to 1.12/1.10 per the offset-to-plate-growth rule to keep the bolts seated.
- g54 `6cac436f` fitness 6.165 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family is pinned simultaneously against the rotor-overlap arm-length floor, the web-crush plate-scale floor, and the printed-material thickness floor, but arm_width_scale sits at 0.78 while its bound is 0.55 and no earlier proposal isolated a width cut in this exact winning geometry, so this pushes width down to 0.62 with waist relief and added thickness as compensating stiffness margin 
- g55 `34b02229` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: Every elite and nearly every prior pivot has stiffened the arm the same way -- moderate thickness plus a strong mid-shaft taper (waist ~0.55) -- and mass has stalled at the 65g floor for that recipe; this abandons the taper strategy entirely for a thin, narrow, untapered shaft (waist pushed to 0.95, near no narrowing) that relies on constant cross-section rather than thickness or taper for stiffne
- g55 `75e5d886` fitness 6.163 Wh/km-agg — was: The one prior width-cut attempt (g54, width 0.62) changed width, waist, and thickness together and lost, so the width-vs-drag trade was never isolated; this holds arm_length, waist, sweep, plate scale, deck_gap, wedge, and material exactly at elite values and changes only width (down to 0.60, well below elite's 0.77) paired with a large thickness increase (0.0062) as pure cross-section stiffness c
- g55 `b8d03e14` fitness 6.024 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm sits pack-limited and flat (4.59-4.60) across the entire elite family, so remaining gains must come from cutting the other five scenarios' drag rather than mass, and battery_wedge_deg is an almost entirely unexploited gene bound (elite sits at 0.23-0.35 of a 0-15 range) that was never cleanly tested on the exact winning short-arm PA12-CF geometry (every prior wedge test bundled it with a wea
- g56 `5ed32770` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: Every stiffening attempt so far leaned on mid-shaft taper plus thickness and the one no-taper test (g55) failed tip deflection because it didn't compensate with real width, so this pivots to a wide, untapered 'ribbon' arm (width pushed to 1.20, waist relieved to 1.05 for near-constant cross-section) carrying stiffness through width instead of thickness, letting arm_thickness drop to 0.0030 while k
- g56 `d3f2fb06` fitness 6.051 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior carbon test just transplanted the pa12_cf floor-thickness recipe onto carbon and lost by a wide margin, never exploiting carbon's actual two advantages -- no printed-material thickness floor and a better stiffness-to-weight ratio -- so this pivots to genuinely thin (0.0026 m) carbon arms near the true minimum, aggressively tapered (waist 0.45) with moderate width (0.95) for root streng
- g56 `f8b8a58e` fitness 5.973 Wh/km-agg — was: The failed vector was the current top elite's exact geometry with deck_gap cut to 0.027, which put the rotor disk too close to the deck/battery stack; restoring deck_gap to the elite's proven 0.0381 while keeping every other gene identical removes that single constraint violation without touching the validated aerodynamic/mass tradeoffs.
- g57 `d5b8430e` fitness 6.017 Wh/km-agg — was: arm_waist_scale has sat frozen at ~0.556 across every elite for the entire plateau despite a floor of 0.4, meaning the mid-shaft taper lever was never actually pushed -- this keeps the exact winning PA12-CF short-arm geometry unchanged except deepening the waist cut to 0.42 (near its bound) with a compensating thickness bump to 0.0050 to hold stiffness margin, isolating unexploited drag headroom r
- g57 `dd8058c9` fitness 6.131 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior sweep-opening test bundled it with longer arms and lost, so sweep was never isolated on the actual winning short-arm geometry; this holds arm_length/width/waist/thickness/material/deck_gap/wedge exactly at elite values and opens front/rear sweep to 42/48 deg (offsets of +10.6/+12 from stock) with plate_length/width grown to 1.22/1.24 per the offset-to-plate-growth rule, testing whether
- g57 `de6b8ddc` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: The failure was rotor-disk tip overlap from pairing near-stock arm_length_scale (0.8) with a wide, untapered arm (width 1.0, waist 0.75) that pushes prop tips outward without added radial reach, so this keeps the wide/untapered-arm stiffness concept and PETG material but lengthens the arm to 1.0 for genuine tip clearance and nudges rear sweep/plate scale slightly to stay within the offset-to-plate
- g58 `e09e735b` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: The winning family has always bought arm stiffness margin by thickening the arm itself while plate_thickness_scale sits pinned at pa12_cf's 0.80 floor with 0.5-1.6 of headroom never touched -- this keeps the exact winning short-arm geometry but shifts the stiffness budget to the deck plates (1.15) so the arm can go thinner (0.0035) with a touch less taper (waist 0.58) for a net mass/drag win untes
- g59 `939e58c1` fitness 5.889 Wh/km-agg — was: The rejected carbon-plate design was sound except plate_thickness_scale 0.55 produced 1.1mm webs against carbon's 1.2mm floor, so this raises plate_thickness_scale to 0.65 (real margin above the failing point) while holding every other gene -- including the untested low-taper arm and near-stock sweep -- exactly as designed.
- g59 `acb48776` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pet_cf)) — was: PET-CF has only ever been flown bundled with long arms (g51 1.05 scale, g53 1.05 scale), both of which lost by 0.6-0.7 Wh/km-agg and left material itself unjudged, exactly the confound that cf_plate isolation cleared in g53; this transplants the unchanged winning short-arm pa12_cf recipe onto pet_cf (material 0.40) with plate_thickness_scale held at the elite's already-compliant 0.8238, testing pe
- g59 `e584eb50` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: Every past width change moved only one direction (down, to 0.60-0.62) and always lost 0.19 Wh/km-agg, while the two attempts to raise width instead confounded it with an untapered waist and extreme 1.2 scale and failed on tip deflection -- this isolates a moderate width increase (0.92, well short of that failed 1.2 extreme) with the elite's own proven taper (waist 0.54) unchanged, using the added 
- g60 `11a813e1` fitness 5.926 Wh/km-agg — was: Battery_wedge_deg has sat almost untouched (0.23-0.35 of a 0-15 range) and every prior clean wedge attempt was bundled with a weaker arm or run on pa12_cf, never on the actual current cf_plate champion recipe; this holds the winning geometry exactly and pushes wedge to a moderate 6deg to isolate whether reduced frontal area beats the added CG-shift cost on the family that is actually winning.
- g60 `ac35c1dc` fitness 6.019 Wh/km-agg — was: Width cuts to 0.60-0.62 always lost on printed materials and the one aggressive width+waist combo on pa12_cf failed tip deflection, but that confound was never isolated on cf_plate, which has a strictly better stiffness-to-weight ratio; this cuts width to 0.65 while relieving the taper (waist 0.60) and adding a modest thickness bump for margin, testing whether carbon alone can survive the narrow-a
- g63 `0a85bf0a` fitness 5.911 Wh/km-agg — was: if cutout holes and a mid-shaft taper each cut mass in isolation, combining mild versions of both on the winning geometry should compound the hot_thin/mass gain further than either alone, so this pairs cutout_scale 0.15 with tip_thickness_scale 0.85 (both moderate, not pushed toward their individual extremes) plus a relieved waist (0.55) and a thickness bump (0.0029) specifically to dodge the flag
- g63 `58619732` fitness 5.916 Wh/km-agg — was: arm_cutout_scale has sat at 0.0 through the entire cf_plate elite lineage despite carbon's superior stiffness-to-weight ratio giving it the most margin to absorb stress risers, so this adds three moderate lightening holes (0.28, safely below the ~0.4 stress-concentration danger zone) to the exact winning short-arm geometry with a small thickness bump (0.0026->0.0030) for margin, leaving the taper 
- g63 `6a61b37c` fitness 5.972 Wh/km-agg — was: tip_thickness_scale has also sat frozen at 1.0 (no mid-shaft dip) through the entire elite lineage even though bending stress is lowest at mid-shaft, so this pushes it to 0.62 to trim mass where it costs least structurally, compensates with a thicker root (0.0026->0.0032) for margin at the tongue/motor-mount stations, and relieves the waist (0.4725->0.65) so the narrowing and thinning levers don't

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 17, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 34, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 17, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 38, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 27, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 42, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 10, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 10, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.01 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.20 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.60 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.19 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.15 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.52 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pla_plus)": 2, "arm overstressed (pet_cf)": 2, "arm overstressed (asa)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 5 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 designs. MOST should be PIVOTAL: abandon that shared trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space (a pivot that lands near the elites is usually a wasted round). BUT check first whether the elites are sitting short of a GENE BOUND (including one that was recently widened) rather than short of a hard constraint or a worse-material tradeoff — that is unexploited headroom, not a dead local optimum, and abandoning it wastes a proposal on a hypothesis (a different material, a different shape family) that the run's own history may already show loses on mass. When you find that headroom, spend ONE of your 3 proposals aggressively pushing the CURRENT winning family further into it instead of discarding it. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates); tip_thickness_scale below 1.0 thins the MIDDLE of the shaft, not the tip itself (full thickness stays at the tongue and the motor mount, a bump-shaped dip in between) -- the structural check now covers the whole shaft station-by-station, so a design can fail on a mid-shaft station even when the root looks fine; and arm_cutout_scale places 3 lightening holes along the shaft sized off the LOCAL width there -- values above ~0.4 usually start failing on stress concentration at the holes, especially stacked with a low tip_thickness_scale in the same region.

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "tip_thickness_scale": <float>, "arm_cutout_scale": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 40a79371 — Every current elite and nearly every prior test relies on the same stiffening trick -- aggressive mid-shaft taper (waist ~0.47-0.60) on a near-floor-thickness shaft -- and every attempt to relax that taper without heavy compensation has failed tip deflection, so this abandons taper entirely (waist 0.95, effectively untapered) and instead buys stiffness from a wider, thicker 'stout beam' cross-sectflew at 6.415 Wh/km
candidate e8accf07 — The first failure was driven by arm length outgrowing the plate, not sweep (sweep matched the elite's near-stock values) -- this keeps the exact long-arm/lower-disk-loading concept but grows plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale further (to 1.18/1.15, beyond the prior 1.05/1.03) to match arm_length_scale's own offset from stock, not just the sweep offset, so the tongue bolts stay seated.flew at 6.513 Wh/km
candidate 0148d40b — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — Every prior long-arm attempt confounded arm_length with a simultaneous sweep change and lost (or failed on tongue/plate geometry), so arm_length has never been tested alone as the pivot variable with proper independent stiffness compensation -- this holds sweep exactly at the elite's proven values and isolates a genuine low-disk-loading long-arm region (1.15, well off the short-arm floor the elite
candidate f70155bc — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Every sweep test so far has moved front and rear together (either near stock or opened together to 42/48, which lost), leaving the asymmetric case totally unexplored even though cold_headwind and crosswind -- the two worst non-storm scenarios -- respond to frontal area and side profile differently, so this pushes front_sweep toward its max (48) to shrink frontal area in headwind while pulling rear
candidate e02d2bef — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — The second failure opened front_sweep far from stock (48deg) while rear_sweep sat pinned near its own floor (36deg), collapsing the front-rear angular separation between same-side arms enough to overlap rotor disks even with a short arm; this moderates the sweep split (40/46, keeping both offsets under ~9deg instead of one extreme +16.6deg) and adds arm-length radial margin (0.92 vs 0.85) so reduc

ec53169beaa7

5.839 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.71
crosswind	3.57
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.48

d7374e00b9ed

5.842 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.71
crosswind	3.57
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.48

4c99fc85e1c2

5.845 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.71
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.49

a8a8640d9a4e

5.849 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.49

13cc64e0b6dc

5.851 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.49

613efda14bd9

5.851 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.49

ac19d20e0e0b

5.852 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.49

0ccd0db07aa6

5.853 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.49

b6f53eeff013

5.854 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.49

33eceba4f8a2

5.855 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.49

2175419c5756

5.859 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.59
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.31
storm	4.50

176d6810fa7d

5.860 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.59
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.31
storm	4.50

ddc30b4e2b6e

5.863 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.59
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.31
storm	4.50

8ad4f1fe84a1

5.938 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.14
cold_headwind	3.77
crosswind	3.63
gusty_light	3.51
hot_thin	3.35
storm	4.56

40a793713f44

6.415 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.37
cold_headwind	4.11
crosswind	3.93
gusty_light	3.77
hot_thin	3.59
storm	4.93

e8accf0753fd

6.513 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.40
cold_headwind	4.20
crosswind	4.00
gusty_light	3.83
hot_thin	3.63
storm	5.00

generation 64

13cc64e0b6dc

5.851 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.49

0ccd0db07aa6

5.853 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.49

1ddf2071f455

5.853 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.49

19625b2f6055

5.854 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.49

ce55342a4835

5.854 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.49

6db70c32221a

5.854 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.49

33eceba4f8a2

5.855 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.49

81d77d40a723

5.858 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.50

e11b88c67c75

5.859 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.31
storm	4.50

176d6810fa7d

5.860 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.59
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.31
storm	4.50

2f14897adbd4

5.867 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.73
crosswind	3.59
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.31
storm	4.50

b29b0b1ef418

5.887 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.12
cold_headwind	3.74
crosswind	3.60
gusty_light	3.48
hot_thin	3.32
storm	4.52

9ba0afe66c30

5.915 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.12
cold_headwind	3.76
crosswind	3.62
gusty_light	3.49
hot_thin	3.33
storm	4.54

21ea4c8dee11

5.938 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.14
cold_headwind	3.77
crosswind	3.64
gusty_light	3.51
hot_thin	3.35
storm	4.56

9781908e7557

6.637 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.50
cold_headwind	4.26
crosswind	4.06
gusty_light	3.90
hot_thin	3.72
storm	5.09

27f98116729b

∞ wh/km agg

arm overstressed (asa)

calm_warm	3.22
cold_headwind	4.04
crosswind	3.80
gusty_light	3.63
hot_thin	3.43
storm	4.75

generation 63

inputs

✦ claude designer · scheduled round · 3 design(s) injected

claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	8
random immigrants	3

mutation σ 0.030 of gene range
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 63 · scheduled round · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.55..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.4..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.0025..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters (the ROOT thickness)
- tip_thickness_scale: 0.5..1.0 — mid-shaft thickness dip as a fraction of root thickness (1.0 = uniform, no dip)
- arm_cutout_scale: 0.0..0.6 — 3 lightening holes along the shaft, radius as a fraction of the local width there (0 = none)
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.5..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257, g21 6.257, g22 6.172, g23 6.165, g24 6.144, g25 6.144, g26 6.144, g27 6.144, g28 6.144, g29 6.144, g30 6.144, g31 6.144, g32 6.144, g33 6.144, g34 6.144, g35 6.144, g36 6.113, g37 6.113, g38 6.113, g39 6.051, g40 6.048, g41 6.045, g42 6.038, g43 6.035, g44 6.027, g45 6.023, g46 6.023, g47 6.020, g48 6.019, g49 5.996, g50 5.996, g51 5.996, g52 5.992, g53 5.986, g54 5.980, g55 5.972, g56 5.972, g57 5.972, g58 5.964, g59 5.889, g60 5.872, g61 5.855, g62 5.853 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 3 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 5.853 Wh/km-agg, frame 61 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8, "arm_width_scale": 0.92, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4725, "arm_thickness": 0.0026, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.5, "plate_length_scale": 0.9686, "plate_width_scale": 0.9984, "deck_gap": 0.038, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.3, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.65, "material": 0.0824, "tip_thickness_scale": 1.0, "arm_cutout_scale": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.1, "cold_headwind": 3.72, "crosswind": 3.58, "gusty_light": 3.46, "hot_thin": 3.3, "storm": 4.49}
fitness 5.854 Wh/km-agg, frame 61 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8003, "arm_width_scale": 0.9072, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4605, "arm_thickness": 0.0026, "front_sweep_deg": 37.0774, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.1057, "plate_length_scale": 0.9689, "plate_width_scale": 1.0002, "deck_gap": 0.038, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.3008, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.6489, "material": 0.0415, "tip_thickness_scale": 1.0, "arm_cutout_scale": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.1, "cold_headwind": 3.72, "crosswind": 3.58, "gusty_light": 3.46, "hot_thin": 3.3, "storm": 4.49}
fitness 5.855 Wh/km-agg, frame 61 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8, "arm_width_scale": 0.92, "arm_waist_scale": 0.48, "arm_thickness": 0.0026, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.5, "plate_length_scale": 0.9686, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.038, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.3, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.65, "material": 0.08, "tip_thickness_scale": 1.0, "arm_cutout_scale": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.1, "cold_headwind": 3.72, "crosswind": 3.58, "gusty_light": 3.46, "hot_thin": 3.3, "storm": 4.49}
fitness 5.855 Wh/km-agg, frame 61 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8022, "arm_width_scale": 0.9475, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4781, "arm_thickness": 0.0025, "front_sweep_deg": 35.9745, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.518, "plate_length_scale": 0.9679, "plate_width_scale": 0.9999, "deck_gap": 0.0374, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.3004, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.6732, "material": 0.0596, "tip_thickness_scale": 1.0, "arm_cutout_scale": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.1, "cold_headwind": 3.72, "crosswind": 3.58, "gusty_light": 3.46, "hot_thin": 3.31, "storm": 4.49}
fitness 5.857 Wh/km-agg, frame 61 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8, "arm_width_scale": 0.9187, "arm_waist_scale": 0.48, "arm_thickness": 0.0026, "front_sweep_deg": 36.8497, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.4987, "plate_length_scale": 0.9686, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.0363, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.3, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.6501, "material": 0.0792, "tip_thickness_scale": 1.0, "arm_cutout_scale": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.1, "cold_headwind": 3.72, "crosswind": 3.58, "gusty_light": 3.46, "hot_thin": 3.3, "storm": 4.5}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g53 `5780394b` fitness 6.118 Wh/km-agg — was: Carbon has been tested many times but always bundled with long arms, max wedge, or opened sweep, so it has never been isolated at the exact geometry that is actually winning (short 0.80 arm, narrow 0.78/0.56 width/waist, near-zero wedge, near-stock sweep); this transplants the winning PA12-CF recipe onto cf_plate unchanged except for exploiting carbon's freedom from the 0.8 printed-material thickn
- g53 `8d850bc7` fitness 6.624 Wh/km-agg — was: The one clean PA12-CF long-arm attempt (g51, 1.10 scale) failed on arm tip deflection from insufficient stiffness margin, and every other long-arm test switched to carbon to dodge the thickness floor and lost by 0.5-1.3 Wh/km-agg anyway, so material was never cleared as the losing variable; this pairs a moderate-long arm (1.05, well short of the failed 1.10) with genuinely reinforced width/waist/t
- g53 `e83b6dd5` fitness 6.012 Wh/km-agg — was: The prescreen failure was caused by the reduced arm_length_scale (0.76, below the elite's 0.797) creating rotor tip overlap, not by the deck_gap push -- so this restores the exact elite arm_length_scale while keeping deck_gap at its 0.045 max to still test whether the current winning family has unexploited standoff headroom.
- g54 `345feac1` fitness 6.829 Wh/km-agg — was: The long-arm carbon build for lower disk loading failed because its 7deg rear-sweep offset from stock outgrew the unchanged 1.0 plate scale and dropped the tongue bolts off the plate, so this keeps the same long-arm/opened-sweep concept but grows plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to 1.12/1.10 per the offset-to-plate-growth rule to keep the bolts seated.
- g54 `6cac436f` fitness 6.165 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family is pinned simultaneously against the rotor-overlap arm-length floor, the web-crush plate-scale floor, and the printed-material thickness floor, but arm_width_scale sits at 0.78 while its bound is 0.55 and no earlier proposal isolated a width cut in this exact winning geometry, so this pushes width down to 0.62 with waist relief and added thickness as compensating stiffness margin 
- g55 `34b02229` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: Every elite and nearly every prior pivot has stiffened the arm the same way -- moderate thickness plus a strong mid-shaft taper (waist ~0.55) -- and mass has stalled at the 65g floor for that recipe; this abandons the taper strategy entirely for a thin, narrow, untapered shaft (waist pushed to 0.95, near no narrowing) that relies on constant cross-section rather than thickness or taper for stiffne
- g55 `75e5d886` fitness 6.163 Wh/km-agg — was: The one prior width-cut attempt (g54, width 0.62) changed width, waist, and thickness together and lost, so the width-vs-drag trade was never isolated; this holds arm_length, waist, sweep, plate scale, deck_gap, wedge, and material exactly at elite values and changes only width (down to 0.60, well below elite's 0.77) paired with a large thickness increase (0.0062) as pure cross-section stiffness c
- g55 `b8d03e14` fitness 6.024 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm sits pack-limited and flat (4.59-4.60) across the entire elite family, so remaining gains must come from cutting the other five scenarios' drag rather than mass, and battery_wedge_deg is an almost entirely unexploited gene bound (elite sits at 0.23-0.35 of a 0-15 range) that was never cleanly tested on the exact winning short-arm PA12-CF geometry (every prior wedge test bundled it with a wea
- g56 `5ed32770` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: Every stiffening attempt so far leaned on mid-shaft taper plus thickness and the one no-taper test (g55) failed tip deflection because it didn't compensate with real width, so this pivots to a wide, untapered 'ribbon' arm (width pushed to 1.20, waist relieved to 1.05 for near-constant cross-section) carrying stiffness through width instead of thickness, letting arm_thickness drop to 0.0030 while k
- g56 `d3f2fb06` fitness 6.051 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior carbon test just transplanted the pa12_cf floor-thickness recipe onto carbon and lost by a wide margin, never exploiting carbon's actual two advantages -- no printed-material thickness floor and a better stiffness-to-weight ratio -- so this pivots to genuinely thin (0.0026 m) carbon arms near the true minimum, aggressively tapered (waist 0.45) with moderate width (0.95) for root streng
- g56 `f8b8a58e` fitness 5.973 Wh/km-agg — was: The failed vector was the current top elite's exact geometry with deck_gap cut to 0.027, which put the rotor disk too close to the deck/battery stack; restoring deck_gap to the elite's proven 0.0381 while keeping every other gene identical removes that single constraint violation without touching the validated aerodynamic/mass tradeoffs.
- g57 `d5b8430e` fitness 6.017 Wh/km-agg — was: arm_waist_scale has sat frozen at ~0.556 across every elite for the entire plateau despite a floor of 0.4, meaning the mid-shaft taper lever was never actually pushed -- this keeps the exact winning PA12-CF short-arm geometry unchanged except deepening the waist cut to 0.42 (near its bound) with a compensating thickness bump to 0.0050 to hold stiffness margin, isolating unexploited drag headroom r
- g57 `dd8058c9` fitness 6.131 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior sweep-opening test bundled it with longer arms and lost, so sweep was never isolated on the actual winning short-arm geometry; this holds arm_length/width/waist/thickness/material/deck_gap/wedge exactly at elite values and opens front/rear sweep to 42/48 deg (offsets of +10.6/+12 from stock) with plate_length/width grown to 1.22/1.24 per the offset-to-plate-growth rule, testing whether
- g57 `de6b8ddc` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: The failure was rotor-disk tip overlap from pairing near-stock arm_length_scale (0.8) with a wide, untapered arm (width 1.0, waist 0.75) that pushes prop tips outward without added radial reach, so this keeps the wide/untapered-arm stiffness concept and PETG material but lengthens the arm to 1.0 for genuine tip clearance and nudges rear sweep/plate scale slightly to stay within the offset-to-plate
- g58 `e09e735b` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: The winning family has always bought arm stiffness margin by thickening the arm itself while plate_thickness_scale sits pinned at pa12_cf's 0.80 floor with 0.5-1.6 of headroom never touched -- this keeps the exact winning short-arm geometry but shifts the stiffness budget to the deck plates (1.15) so the arm can go thinner (0.0035) with a touch less taper (waist 0.58) for a net mass/drag win untes
- g59 `939e58c1` fitness 5.889 Wh/km-agg — was: The rejected carbon-plate design was sound except plate_thickness_scale 0.55 produced 1.1mm webs against carbon's 1.2mm floor, so this raises plate_thickness_scale to 0.65 (real margin above the failing point) while holding every other gene -- including the untested low-taper arm and near-stock sweep -- exactly as designed.
- g59 `acb48776` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pet_cf)) — was: PET-CF has only ever been flown bundled with long arms (g51 1.05 scale, g53 1.05 scale), both of which lost by 0.6-0.7 Wh/km-agg and left material itself unjudged, exactly the confound that cf_plate isolation cleared in g53; this transplants the unchanged winning short-arm pa12_cf recipe onto pet_cf (material 0.40) with plate_thickness_scale held at the elite's already-compliant 0.8238, testing pe
- g59 `e584eb50` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: Every past width change moved only one direction (down, to 0.60-0.62) and always lost 0.19 Wh/km-agg, while the two attempts to raise width instead confounded it with an untapered waist and extreme 1.2 scale and failed on tip deflection -- this isolates a moderate width increase (0.92, well short of that failed 1.2 extreme) with the elite's own proven taper (waist 0.54) unchanged, using the added 
- g60 `11a813e1` fitness 5.926 Wh/km-agg — was: Battery_wedge_deg has sat almost untouched (0.23-0.35 of a 0-15 range) and every prior clean wedge attempt was bundled with a weaker arm or run on pa12_cf, never on the actual current cf_plate champion recipe; this holds the winning geometry exactly and pushes wedge to a moderate 6deg to isolate whether reduced frontal area beats the added CG-shift cost on the family that is actually winning.
- g60 `ac35c1dc` fitness 6.019 Wh/km-agg — was: Width cuts to 0.60-0.62 always lost on printed materials and the one aggressive width+waist combo on pa12_cf failed tip deflection, but that confound was never isolated on cf_plate, which has a strictly better stiffness-to-weight ratio; this cuts width to 0.65 while relieving the taper (waist 0.60) and adding a modest thickness bump for margin, testing whether carbon alone can survive the narrow-a

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 17, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 34, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 17, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 38, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 27, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 42, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 10, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 10, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.01 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.20 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.60 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.19 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.15 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.52 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pla_plus)": 2}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

Propose exactly 3 NEW genome vectors that are meaningfully DIFFERENT from the elites and from each other — design hypotheses, not small perturbations. Build on what the trajectory and your earlier proposals' outcomes show worked; avoid repeating what failed. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates); tip_thickness_scale below 1.0 thins the MIDDLE of the shaft, not the tip itself (full thickness stays at the tongue and the motor mount, a bump-shaped dip in between) -- the structural check now covers the whole shaft station-by-station, so a design can fail on a mid-shaft station even when the root looks fine; and arm_cutout_scale places 3 lightening holes along the shaft sized off the LOCAL width there -- values above ~0.4 usually start failing on stress concentration at the holes, especially stacked with a low tip_thickness_scale in the same region.

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "tip_thickness_scale": <float>, "arm_cutout_scale": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 58619732 — arm_cutout_scale has sat at 0.0 through the entire cf_plate elite lineage despite carbon's superior stiffness-to-weight ratio giving it the most margin to absorb stress risers, so this adds three moderate lightening holes (0.28, safely below the ~0.4 stress-concentration danger zone) to the exact winning short-arm geometry with a small thickness bump (0.0026->0.0030) for margin, leaving the taper flew at 5.916 Wh/km
candidate 6a61b37c — tip_thickness_scale has also sat frozen at 1.0 (no mid-shaft dip) through the entire elite lineage even though bending stress is lowest at mid-shaft, so this pushes it to 0.62 to trim mass where it costs least structurally, compensates with a thicker root (0.0026->0.0032) for margin at the tongue/motor-mount stations, and relieves the waist (0.4725->0.65) so the narrowing and thinning levers don'tflew at 5.972 Wh/km
candidate 0a85bf0a — if cutout holes and a mid-shaft taper each cut mass in isolation, combining mild versions of both on the winning geometry should compound the hot_thin/mass gain further than either alone, so this pairs cutout_scale 0.15 with tip_thickness_scale 0.85 (both moderate, not pushed toward their individual extremes) plus a relieved waist (0.55) and a thickness bump (0.0029) specifically to dodge the flagflew at 5.911 Wh/km

13cc64e0b6dc

5.851 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.09
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.45
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.49

0ccd0db07aa6

5.853 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.49

afc5d2384c50

5.854 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.49

6db70c32221a

5.854 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.49

8dbbfdecc18e

5.855 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.49

30a97e96c273

5.855 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.49

b188bca6f7ae

5.866 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.73
crosswind	3.59
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.31
storm	4.50

275827ce5e61

5.880 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.11
cold_headwind	3.74
crosswind	3.60
gusty_light	3.47
hot_thin	3.32
storm	4.51

73dbaa8da714

5.898 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.12
cold_headwind	3.75
crosswind	3.61
gusty_light	3.48
hot_thin	3.32
storm	4.53

0a85bf0a63b2

5.911 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.12
cold_headwind	3.75
crosswind	3.62
gusty_light	3.49
hot_thin	3.33
storm	4.54

58619732be87

5.916 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.13
cold_headwind	3.76
crosswind	3.62
gusty_light	3.49
hot_thin	3.34
storm	4.54

6a61b37c4864

5.972 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.79
crosswind	3.65
gusty_light	3.52
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.58

fd6ec10c3150

7.394 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.80
cold_headwind	4.94
crosswind	4.52
gusty_light	4.30
hot_thin	4.04
storm	5.69

adf79336df57

∞ wh/km agg

arm overstressed (pet_cf)

calm_warm	3.29
cold_headwind	4.04
crosswind	3.85
gusty_light	3.68
hot_thin	3.50
storm	4.81

c00dca0c76c7

∞ wh/km agg

arm overstressed (pet_cf)

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	4.10
crosswind	3.88
gusty_light	3.71
hot_thin	3.51
storm	4.85

1d9c3ade26c5

∞ wh/km agg

arm resonance with rotor 1P

calm_warm	3.70
cold_headwind	4.49
crosswind	4.32
gusty_light	4.14
hot_thin	3.95
storm	5.40

generation 62

6f34a6d8b8a0

5.853 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.49

35eb65efe1f7

5.854 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.49

7b72828ca192

5.855 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.49

81052cfa1daa

5.855 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.31
storm	4.49

075869c99e9b

5.857 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.50

f2101412c247

5.859 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.31
storm	4.50

80ffacd9e24d

5.871 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.73
crosswind	3.59
gusty_light	3.47
hot_thin	3.31
storm	4.51

15580aef19da

5.875 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.74
crosswind	3.60
gusty_light	3.47
hot_thin	3.31
storm	4.51

f2a8bd3b3138

5.888 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.11
cold_headwind	3.74
crosswind	3.60
gusty_light	3.48
hot_thin	3.32
storm	4.52

8c77829a4cac

5.895 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.11
cold_headwind	3.75
crosswind	3.61
gusty_light	3.48
hot_thin	3.32
storm	4.53

22aeadad143b

5.896 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.12
cold_headwind	3.74
crosswind	3.61
gusty_light	3.48
hot_thin	3.32
storm	4.53

db6154a228b3

5.925 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.14
cold_headwind	3.76
crosswind	3.63
gusty_light	3.50
hot_thin	3.34
storm	4.54

c9b7d3ef88f4

5.965 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.80
crosswind	3.66
gusty_light	3.52
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.58

d57411b0f828

7.037 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.70
cold_headwind	4.50
crosswind	4.33
gusty_light	4.14
hot_thin	3.95
storm	5.40

5de6915eac91

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pet_cf)

calm_warm	3.43
cold_headwind	4.14
crosswind	3.98
gusty_light	3.82
hot_thin	3.65
storm	4.97

133860f4569a

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (petg)

calm_warm	3.37
cold_headwind	4.15
crosswind	3.95
gusty_light	3.78
hot_thin	3.59
storm	4.93

generation 61

7b72828ca192

5.855 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.30
storm	4.49

f2101412c247

5.859 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.72
crosswind	3.58
gusty_light	3.46
hot_thin	3.31
storm	4.50

d773d9589e16

5.872 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.73
crosswind	3.59
gusty_light	3.47
hot_thin	3.31
storm	4.51

0c8b8ef5f4cd

5.874 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.73
crosswind	3.60
gusty_light	3.47
hot_thin	3.31
storm	4.51

e377f0f3cad7

5.876 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.11
cold_headwind	3.73
crosswind	3.60
gusty_light	3.47
hot_thin	3.32
storm	4.51

939e58c18328

5.889 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.11
cold_headwind	3.74
crosswind	3.60
gusty_light	3.48
hot_thin	3.32
storm	4.52

afa6d0245b45

5.896 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.12
cold_headwind	3.74
crosswind	3.61
gusty_light	3.48
hot_thin	3.33
storm	4.52

4f7f130683ab

5.927 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.13
cold_headwind	3.77
crosswind	3.63
gusty_light	3.50
hot_thin	3.34
storm	4.55

5868ef45b988

5.942 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.14
cold_headwind	3.78
crosswind	3.64
gusty_light	3.51
hot_thin	3.35
storm	4.56

4b55fd030669

5.963 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.80
crosswind	3.66
gusty_light	3.52
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.57

998f02b54cdc

5.964 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.80
crosswind	3.66
gusty_light	3.52
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.57

5b36b7ba31ae

5.965 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.80
crosswind	3.66
gusty_light	3.52
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.58

1f9ba8b4c8e5

5.972 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.80
crosswind	3.66
gusty_light	3.52
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.58

e43f6fd13371

5.973 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.81
crosswind	3.67
gusty_light	3.52
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.58

db0c7f4100a9

6.943 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.65
cold_headwind	4.43
crosswind	4.27
gusty_light	4.09
hot_thin	3.90
storm	5.33

d545afbf4016

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pet_cf)

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.82
crosswind	3.69
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.61

generation 60

inputs

✦ claude designer · scheduled round · 2 design(s) injected, 2 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	4
claude-designed	2
crossovers (tournament parents)	8
mutants (single parent)	1
random immigrants	1

mutation σ 0.030 of gene range
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 60 · scheduled round · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.55..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.4..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.0025..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.5..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257, g21 6.257, g22 6.172, g23 6.165, g24 6.144, g25 6.144, g26 6.144, g27 6.144, g28 6.144, g29 6.144, g30 6.144, g31 6.144, g32 6.144, g33 6.144, g34 6.144, g35 6.144, g36 6.113, g37 6.113, g38 6.113, g39 6.051, g40 6.048, g41 6.045, g42 6.038, g43 6.035, g44 6.027, g45 6.023, g46 6.023, g47 6.020, g48 6.019, g49 5.996, g50 5.996, g51 5.996, g52 5.992, g53 5.986, g54 5.980, g55 5.972, g56 5.972, g57 5.972, g58 5.964, g59 5.889

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 5.889 Wh/km-agg, frame 64 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8, "arm_width_scale": 0.92, "arm_waist_scale": 0.48, "arm_thickness": 0.0028, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.5, "plate_length_scale": 0.97, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.038, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.3, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.65, "material": 0.08} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.11, "cold_headwind": 3.74, "crosswind": 3.6, "gusty_light": 3.48, "hot_thin": 3.32, "storm": 4.52}
fitness 5.964 Wh/km-agg, frame 65 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7973, "arm_width_scale": 0.7732, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5374, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 35.6077, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.8771, "plate_length_scale": 0.9544, "plate_width_scale": 0.9989, "deck_gap": 0.0387, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2902, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8247, "material": 0.3294} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.15, "cold_headwind": 3.8, "crosswind": 3.66, "gusty_light": 3.52, "hot_thin": 3.36, "storm": 4.57}
fitness 5.964 Wh/km-agg, frame 64 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7963, "arm_width_scale": 0.7732, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5369, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 35.6167, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.8764, "plate_length_scale": 0.954, "plate_width_scale": 0.9989, "deck_gap": 0.0387, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2948, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8238, "material": 0.3295} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.15, "cold_headwind": 3.8, "crosswind": 3.66, "gusty_light": 3.52, "hot_thin": 3.36, "storm": 4.57}
fitness 5.972 Wh/km-agg, frame 65 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7942, "arm_width_scale": 0.7789, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5556, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 37.6047, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.441, "plate_length_scale": 0.9786, "plate_width_scale": 1.0079, "deck_gap": 0.0381, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2665, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8003, "material": 0.285} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.15, "cold_headwind": 3.81, "crosswind": 3.67, "gusty_light": 3.52, "hot_thin": 3.36, "storm": 4.58}
fitness 5.972 Wh/km-agg, frame 65 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7942, "arm_width_scale": 0.7789, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5559, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 37.5987, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.441, "plate_length_scale": 0.9786, "plate_width_scale": 1.0079, "deck_gap": 0.0381, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2708, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8003, "material": 0.284} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.15, "cold_headwind": 3.81, "crosswind": 3.67, "gusty_light": 3.52, "hot_thin": 3.36, "storm": 4.58}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g52 `1633db9f` fitness 6.942 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior max-wedge attempt on ASA/PETG/PLA+ carried insufficient arm margin and failed on tip deflection before the frontal-area benefit could even be measured; this stacks near-max wedge (14deg) with a deliberately over-built ASA arm (1.1 width, 0.9 waist, 0.008 thickness -- well past anything previously tried) at true stock sweep/plate scale so no other confound can explain a loss if wedge st
- g52 `e44921a6` fitness 6.606 Wh/km-agg — was: PLA+ has only ever been flown once (at insufficient margin, failing arm tip deflection) and never isolated with real stiffness margin, so this pairs it with a thick low-taper arm cross-section (0.9 waist = minimal narrowing, 0.0065 thickness) at moderate length and true stock-ish sweep/plate scale to test whether the material itself -- not just PA12-CF's floor-mass recipe -- can survive and compet
- g53 `5780394b` fitness 6.118 Wh/km-agg — was: Carbon has been tested many times but always bundled with long arms, max wedge, or opened sweep, so it has never been isolated at the exact geometry that is actually winning (short 0.80 arm, narrow 0.78/0.56 width/waist, near-zero wedge, near-stock sweep); this transplants the winning PA12-CF recipe onto cf_plate unchanged except for exploiting carbon's freedom from the 0.8 printed-material thickn
- g53 `8d850bc7` fitness 6.624 Wh/km-agg — was: The one clean PA12-CF long-arm attempt (g51, 1.10 scale) failed on arm tip deflection from insufficient stiffness margin, and every other long-arm test switched to carbon to dodge the thickness floor and lost by 0.5-1.3 Wh/km-agg anyway, so material was never cleared as the losing variable; this pairs a moderate-long arm (1.05, well short of the failed 1.10) with genuinely reinforced width/waist/t
- g53 `e83b6dd5` fitness 6.012 Wh/km-agg — was: The prescreen failure was caused by the reduced arm_length_scale (0.76, below the elite's 0.797) creating rotor tip overlap, not by the deck_gap push -- so this restores the exact elite arm_length_scale while keeping deck_gap at its 0.045 max to still test whether the current winning family has unexploited standoff headroom.
- g54 `345feac1` fitness 6.829 Wh/km-agg — was: The long-arm carbon build for lower disk loading failed because its 7deg rear-sweep offset from stock outgrew the unchanged 1.0 plate scale and dropped the tongue bolts off the plate, so this keeps the same long-arm/opened-sweep concept but grows plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to 1.12/1.10 per the offset-to-plate-growth rule to keep the bolts seated.
- g54 `6cac436f` fitness 6.165 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family is pinned simultaneously against the rotor-overlap arm-length floor, the web-crush plate-scale floor, and the printed-material thickness floor, but arm_width_scale sits at 0.78 while its bound is 0.55 and no earlier proposal isolated a width cut in this exact winning geometry, so this pushes width down to 0.62 with waist relief and added thickness as compensating stiffness margin 
- g55 `34b02229` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: Every elite and nearly every prior pivot has stiffened the arm the same way -- moderate thickness plus a strong mid-shaft taper (waist ~0.55) -- and mass has stalled at the 65g floor for that recipe; this abandons the taper strategy entirely for a thin, narrow, untapered shaft (waist pushed to 0.95, near no narrowing) that relies on constant cross-section rather than thickness or taper for stiffne
- g55 `75e5d886` fitness 6.163 Wh/km-agg — was: The one prior width-cut attempt (g54, width 0.62) changed width, waist, and thickness together and lost, so the width-vs-drag trade was never isolated; this holds arm_length, waist, sweep, plate scale, deck_gap, wedge, and material exactly at elite values and changes only width (down to 0.60, well below elite's 0.77) paired with a large thickness increase (0.0062) as pure cross-section stiffness c
- g55 `b8d03e14` fitness 6.024 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm sits pack-limited and flat (4.59-4.60) across the entire elite family, so remaining gains must come from cutting the other five scenarios' drag rather than mass, and battery_wedge_deg is an almost entirely unexploited gene bound (elite sits at 0.23-0.35 of a 0-15 range) that was never cleanly tested on the exact winning short-arm PA12-CF geometry (every prior wedge test bundled it with a wea
- g56 `5ed32770` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: Every stiffening attempt so far leaned on mid-shaft taper plus thickness and the one no-taper test (g55) failed tip deflection because it didn't compensate with real width, so this pivots to a wide, untapered 'ribbon' arm (width pushed to 1.20, waist relieved to 1.05 for near-constant cross-section) carrying stiffness through width instead of thickness, letting arm_thickness drop to 0.0030 while k
- g56 `d3f2fb06` fitness 6.051 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior carbon test just transplanted the pa12_cf floor-thickness recipe onto carbon and lost by a wide margin, never exploiting carbon's actual two advantages -- no printed-material thickness floor and a better stiffness-to-weight ratio -- so this pivots to genuinely thin (0.0026 m) carbon arms near the true minimum, aggressively tapered (waist 0.45) with moderate width (0.95) for root streng
- g56 `f8b8a58e` fitness 5.973 Wh/km-agg — was: The failed vector was the current top elite's exact geometry with deck_gap cut to 0.027, which put the rotor disk too close to the deck/battery stack; restoring deck_gap to the elite's proven 0.0381 while keeping every other gene identical removes that single constraint violation without touching the validated aerodynamic/mass tradeoffs.
- g57 `d5b8430e` fitness 6.017 Wh/km-agg — was: arm_waist_scale has sat frozen at ~0.556 across every elite for the entire plateau despite a floor of 0.4, meaning the mid-shaft taper lever was never actually pushed -- this keeps the exact winning PA12-CF short-arm geometry unchanged except deepening the waist cut to 0.42 (near its bound) with a compensating thickness bump to 0.0050 to hold stiffness margin, isolating unexploited drag headroom r
- g57 `dd8058c9` fitness 6.131 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior sweep-opening test bundled it with longer arms and lost, so sweep was never isolated on the actual winning short-arm geometry; this holds arm_length/width/waist/thickness/material/deck_gap/wedge exactly at elite values and opens front/rear sweep to 42/48 deg (offsets of +10.6/+12 from stock) with plate_length/width grown to 1.22/1.24 per the offset-to-plate-growth rule, testing whether
- g57 `de6b8ddc` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: The failure was rotor-disk tip overlap from pairing near-stock arm_length_scale (0.8) with a wide, untapered arm (width 1.0, waist 0.75) that pushes prop tips outward without added radial reach, so this keeps the wide/untapered-arm stiffness concept and PETG material but lengthens the arm to 1.0 for genuine tip clearance and nudges rear sweep/plate scale slightly to stay within the offset-to-plate
- g58 `e09e735b` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: The winning family has always bought arm stiffness margin by thickening the arm itself while plate_thickness_scale sits pinned at pa12_cf's 0.80 floor with 0.5-1.6 of headroom never touched -- this keeps the exact winning short-arm geometry but shifts the stiffness budget to the deck plates (1.15) so the arm can go thinner (0.0035) with a touch less taper (waist 0.58) for a net mass/drag win untes
- g59 `939e58c1` fitness 5.889 Wh/km-agg — was: The rejected carbon-plate design was sound except plate_thickness_scale 0.55 produced 1.1mm webs against carbon's 1.2mm floor, so this raises plate_thickness_scale to 0.65 (real margin above the failing point) while holding every other gene -- including the untested low-taper arm and near-stock sweep -- exactly as designed.
- g59 `acb48776` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pet_cf)) — was: PET-CF has only ever been flown bundled with long arms (g51 1.05 scale, g53 1.05 scale), both of which lost by 0.6-0.7 Wh/km-agg and left material itself unjudged, exactly the confound that cf_plate isolation cleared in g53; this transplants the unchanged winning short-arm pa12_cf recipe onto pet_cf (material 0.40) with plate_thickness_scale held at the elite's already-compliant 0.8238, testing pe
- g59 `e584eb50` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: Every past width change moved only one direction (down, to 0.60-0.62) and always lost 0.19 Wh/km-agg, while the two attempts to raise width instead confounded it with an untapered waist and extreme 1.2 scale and failed on tip deflection -- this isolates a moderate width increase (0.92, well short of that failed 1.2 extreme) with the elite's own proven taper (waist 0.54) unchanged, using the added 

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 17, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 34, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 17, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 38, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 27, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 41, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 7, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 9, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.01 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.20 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.60 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.19 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.15 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.52 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pla_plus)": 2}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

Propose exactly 3 NEW genome vectors that are meaningfully DIFFERENT from the elites and from each other — design hypotheses, not small perturbations. Build on what the trajectory and your earlier proposals' outcomes show worked; avoid repeating what failed. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate ac35c1dc — Width cuts to 0.60-0.62 always lost on printed materials and the one aggressive width+waist combo on pa12_cf failed tip deflection, but that confound was never isolated on cf_plate, which has a strictly better stiffness-to-weight ratio; this cuts width to 0.65 while relieving the taper (waist 0.60) and adding a modest thickness bump for margin, testing whether carbon alone can survive the narrow-aflew at 6.019 Wh/km
candidate 11a813e1 — Battery_wedge_deg has sat almost untouched (0.23-0.35 of a 0-15 range) and every prior clean wedge attempt was bundled with a weaker arm or run on pa12_cf, never on the actual current cf_plate champion recipe; this holds the winning geometry exactly and pushes wedge to a moderate 6deg to isolate whether reduced frontal area beats the added CG-shift cost on the family that is actually winning.flew at 5.926 Wh/km
candidate 20b05abe — rejected pre-flight (plate web too thin (plate_main 1.25 mm, stock 1.90 mm)) — Every sweep test so far opened the angle further from stock and lost; nobody has tried tightening sweep back toward stock on the winning cf_plate geometry, which lets plate_length/width_scale shrink toward the 0.95 crush floor for less material and a smaller side/frontal profile without violating the tongue-bolt-on-plate rule.
candidate 5b593b76 — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — The failure was a plate_main web crush (1.25mm vs 1.90mm stock) from plate_length/width_scale sitting at/below the 0.95 danger threshold while plate_thickness_scale (0.65) exactly matches the proven top elite -- so this keeps the arm geometry, thickness, sweep, and material unchanged and just grows plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to 1.00/1.02 (above the elite's own 0.97/1.00) to restore web m

d773d9589e16

5.872 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.10
cold_headwind	3.73
crosswind	3.59
gusty_light	3.47
hot_thin	3.31
storm	4.51

939e58c18328

5.889 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.11
cold_headwind	3.74
crosswind	3.60
gusty_light	3.48
hot_thin	3.32
storm	4.52

11a813e12658

5.926 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.13
cold_headwind	3.77
crosswind	3.63
gusty_light	3.50
hot_thin	3.34
storm	4.55

4b55fd030669

5.963 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.80
crosswind	3.66
gusty_light	3.52
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.57

5cdac6ab7364

5.964 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.80
crosswind	3.66
gusty_light	3.52
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.57

7d59e35df109

5.965 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.80
crosswind	3.66
gusty_light	3.52
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.58

5b36b7ba31ae

5.965 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.80
crosswind	3.66
gusty_light	3.52
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.58

a6d43b5c7c76

5.972 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.81
crosswind	3.67
gusty_light	3.52
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.58

e577ecae1635

5.983 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.81
crosswind	3.67
gusty_light	3.53
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.59

ca88f36b4e23

5.988 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.82
crosswind	3.68
gusty_light	3.53
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.59

dc6fdce0b9e2

5.996 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.83
crosswind	3.68
gusty_light	3.54
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.60

1562b58bb92a

6.011 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.84
crosswind	3.69
gusty_light	3.54
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.61

ac35c1dcb265

6.019 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.82
crosswind	3.69
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.40
storm	4.62

e0d41ac327fc

6.924 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.64
cold_headwind	4.42
crosswind	4.26
gusty_light	4.08
hot_thin	3.89
storm	5.32

c6d691e56f31

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pet_cf)

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.83
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.62

d32580f8eac6

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.83
crosswind	3.68
gusty_light	3.53
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.60

generation 59

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 3 design(s) injected, 1 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	4
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	1
mutants (single parent)	1
pivot crosses (far parent)	6
random immigrants	1

mutation σ 0.030 of gene range
pivot σ 0.048 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 59 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.55..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.4..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.0025..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.5..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257, g21 6.257, g22 6.172, g23 6.165, g24 6.144, g25 6.144, g26 6.144, g27 6.144, g28 6.144, g29 6.144, g30 6.144, g31 6.144, g32 6.144, g33 6.144, g34 6.144, g35 6.144, g36 6.113, g37 6.113, g38 6.113, g39 6.051, g40 6.048, g41 6.045, g42 6.038, g43 6.035, g44 6.027, g45 6.023, g46 6.023, g47 6.020, g48 6.019, g49 5.996, g50 5.996, g51 5.996, g52 5.992, g53 5.986, g54 5.980, g55 5.972, g56 5.972, g57 5.972, g58 5.964 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 19 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 5.964 Wh/km-agg, frame 64 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7963, "arm_width_scale": 0.7732, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5369, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 35.6167, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.8764, "plate_length_scale": 0.954, "plate_width_scale": 0.9989, "deck_gap": 0.0387, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2948, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8238, "material": 0.3295} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.15, "cold_headwind": 3.8, "crosswind": 3.66, "gusty_light": 3.52, "hot_thin": 3.36, "storm": 4.57}
fitness 5.972 Wh/km-agg, frame 65 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7942, "arm_width_scale": 0.7789, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5556, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 37.6047, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.441, "plate_length_scale": 0.9786, "plate_width_scale": 1.0079, "deck_gap": 0.0381, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2665, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8003, "material": 0.285} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.15, "cold_headwind": 3.81, "crosswind": 3.67, "gusty_light": 3.52, "hot_thin": 3.36, "storm": 4.58}
fitness 5.972 Wh/km-agg, frame 65 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7942, "arm_width_scale": 0.7789, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5559, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 37.5987, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.441, "plate_length_scale": 0.9786, "plate_width_scale": 1.0079, "deck_gap": 0.0381, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2708, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8003, "material": 0.284} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.15, "cold_headwind": 3.81, "crosswind": 3.67, "gusty_light": 3.52, "hot_thin": 3.36, "storm": 4.58}
fitness 5.973 Wh/km-agg, frame 65 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7954, "arm_width_scale": 0.779, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5555, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 37.6663, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.4263, "plate_length_scale": 0.9785, "plate_width_scale": 1.0079, "deck_gap": 0.0381, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.264, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8, "material": 0.2869} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.15, "cold_headwind": 3.81, "crosswind": 3.67, "gusty_light": 3.52, "hot_thin": 3.36, "storm": 4.58}
fitness 5.973 Wh/km-agg, frame 65 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7942, "arm_width_scale": 0.7789, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5556, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 37.6047, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.441, "plate_length_scale": 0.9786, "plate_width_scale": 1.0079, "deck_gap": 0.0381, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2665, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8003, "material": 0.285} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.15, "cold_headwind": 3.81, "crosswind": 3.67, "gusty_light": 3.52, "hot_thin": 3.36, "storm": 4.58}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g51 `4981aebc` fitness 6.484 Wh/km-agg — was: Both prescreen failures held arm_length_scale at the floor-mass 0.8 elite value while perturbing width/waist/sweep, so this pivots to genuinely long carbon arms (1.2, well clear of any tip-overlap margin) at true stock-ish sweep and zero wedge to isolate whether lower disk loading alone -- with no printed-material thickness floor -- beats the plateaued short-arm family.
- g51 `8b0b576d` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: Every long-arm pivot so far (g43/g44/g47/g48) switched to carbon to dodge the printed-material thickness floor and still lost by 0.2-1.3 Wh/km-agg, which points at carbon itself -- not the disk-loading lever -- as the losing variable, so this tests genuinely long arms (1.10, well beyond elite's 0.80) for lower induced power on PA12-CF, the material that's actually winning, with a moderate width/th
- g51 `ec33a483` fitness 6.728 Wh/km-agg — was: The failed batch tried sweep/width tweaks at short 0.8 arms and clipped rotor tip clearance, so this instead lengthens the arms to 1.05 for real radial margin while genuinely opening both sweeps for storm-gust rotor separation, growing plate_length/width by ~0.22 per the offset-to-plate-growth rule so the swept tongue bolts stay seated, on never-validly-flown PET-CF at real stiffness margin.
- g52 `1633db9f` fitness 6.942 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior max-wedge attempt on ASA/PETG/PLA+ carried insufficient arm margin and failed on tip deflection before the frontal-area benefit could even be measured; this stacks near-max wedge (14deg) with a deliberately over-built ASA arm (1.1 width, 0.9 waist, 0.008 thickness -- well past anything previously tried) at true stock sweep/plate scale so no other confound can explain a loss if wedge st
- g52 `e44921a6` fitness 6.606 Wh/km-agg — was: PLA+ has only ever been flown once (at insufficient margin, failing arm tip deflection) and never isolated with real stiffness margin, so this pairs it with a thick low-taper arm cross-section (0.9 waist = minimal narrowing, 0.0065 thickness) at moderate length and true stock-ish sweep/plate scale to test whether the material itself -- not just PA12-CF's floor-mass recipe -- can survive and compet
- g53 `5780394b` fitness 6.118 Wh/km-agg — was: Carbon has been tested many times but always bundled with long arms, max wedge, or opened sweep, so it has never been isolated at the exact geometry that is actually winning (short 0.80 arm, narrow 0.78/0.56 width/waist, near-zero wedge, near-stock sweep); this transplants the winning PA12-CF recipe onto cf_plate unchanged except for exploiting carbon's freedom from the 0.8 printed-material thickn
- g53 `8d850bc7` fitness 6.624 Wh/km-agg — was: The one clean PA12-CF long-arm attempt (g51, 1.10 scale) failed on arm tip deflection from insufficient stiffness margin, and every other long-arm test switched to carbon to dodge the thickness floor and lost by 0.5-1.3 Wh/km-agg anyway, so material was never cleared as the losing variable; this pairs a moderate-long arm (1.05, well short of the failed 1.10) with genuinely reinforced width/waist/t
- g53 `e83b6dd5` fitness 6.012 Wh/km-agg — was: The prescreen failure was caused by the reduced arm_length_scale (0.76, below the elite's 0.797) creating rotor tip overlap, not by the deck_gap push -- so this restores the exact elite arm_length_scale while keeping deck_gap at its 0.045 max to still test whether the current winning family has unexploited standoff headroom.
- g54 `345feac1` fitness 6.829 Wh/km-agg — was: The long-arm carbon build for lower disk loading failed because its 7deg rear-sweep offset from stock outgrew the unchanged 1.0 plate scale and dropped the tongue bolts off the plate, so this keeps the same long-arm/opened-sweep concept but grows plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to 1.12/1.10 per the offset-to-plate-growth rule to keep the bolts seated.
- g54 `6cac436f` fitness 6.165 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family is pinned simultaneously against the rotor-overlap arm-length floor, the web-crush plate-scale floor, and the printed-material thickness floor, but arm_width_scale sits at 0.78 while its bound is 0.55 and no earlier proposal isolated a width cut in this exact winning geometry, so this pushes width down to 0.62 with waist relief and added thickness as compensating stiffness margin 
- g55 `34b02229` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: Every elite and nearly every prior pivot has stiffened the arm the same way -- moderate thickness plus a strong mid-shaft taper (waist ~0.55) -- and mass has stalled at the 65g floor for that recipe; this abandons the taper strategy entirely for a thin, narrow, untapered shaft (waist pushed to 0.95, near no narrowing) that relies on constant cross-section rather than thickness or taper for stiffne
- g55 `75e5d886` fitness 6.163 Wh/km-agg — was: The one prior width-cut attempt (g54, width 0.62) changed width, waist, and thickness together and lost, so the width-vs-drag trade was never isolated; this holds arm_length, waist, sweep, plate scale, deck_gap, wedge, and material exactly at elite values and changes only width (down to 0.60, well below elite's 0.77) paired with a large thickness increase (0.0062) as pure cross-section stiffness c
- g55 `b8d03e14` fitness 6.024 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm sits pack-limited and flat (4.59-4.60) across the entire elite family, so remaining gains must come from cutting the other five scenarios' drag rather than mass, and battery_wedge_deg is an almost entirely unexploited gene bound (elite sits at 0.23-0.35 of a 0-15 range) that was never cleanly tested on the exact winning short-arm PA12-CF geometry (every prior wedge test bundled it with a wea
- g56 `5ed32770` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: Every stiffening attempt so far leaned on mid-shaft taper plus thickness and the one no-taper test (g55) failed tip deflection because it didn't compensate with real width, so this pivots to a wide, untapered 'ribbon' arm (width pushed to 1.20, waist relieved to 1.05 for near-constant cross-section) carrying stiffness through width instead of thickness, letting arm_thickness drop to 0.0030 while k
- g56 `d3f2fb06` fitness 6.051 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior carbon test just transplanted the pa12_cf floor-thickness recipe onto carbon and lost by a wide margin, never exploiting carbon's actual two advantages -- no printed-material thickness floor and a better stiffness-to-weight ratio -- so this pivots to genuinely thin (0.0026 m) carbon arms near the true minimum, aggressively tapered (waist 0.45) with moderate width (0.95) for root streng
- g56 `f8b8a58e` fitness 5.973 Wh/km-agg — was: The failed vector was the current top elite's exact geometry with deck_gap cut to 0.027, which put the rotor disk too close to the deck/battery stack; restoring deck_gap to the elite's proven 0.0381 while keeping every other gene identical removes that single constraint violation without touching the validated aerodynamic/mass tradeoffs.
- g57 `d5b8430e` fitness 6.017 Wh/km-agg — was: arm_waist_scale has sat frozen at ~0.556 across every elite for the entire plateau despite a floor of 0.4, meaning the mid-shaft taper lever was never actually pushed -- this keeps the exact winning PA12-CF short-arm geometry unchanged except deepening the waist cut to 0.42 (near its bound) with a compensating thickness bump to 0.0050 to hold stiffness margin, isolating unexploited drag headroom r
- g57 `dd8058c9` fitness 6.131 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior sweep-opening test bundled it with longer arms and lost, so sweep was never isolated on the actual winning short-arm geometry; this holds arm_length/width/waist/thickness/material/deck_gap/wedge exactly at elite values and opens front/rear sweep to 42/48 deg (offsets of +10.6/+12 from stock) with plate_length/width grown to 1.22/1.24 per the offset-to-plate-growth rule, testing whether
- g57 `de6b8ddc` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: The failure was rotor-disk tip overlap from pairing near-stock arm_length_scale (0.8) with a wide, untapered arm (width 1.0, waist 0.75) that pushes prop tips outward without added radial reach, so this keeps the wide/untapered-arm stiffness concept and PETG material but lengthens the arm to 1.0 for genuine tip clearance and nudges rear sweep/plate scale slightly to stay within the offset-to-plate
- g58 `e09e735b` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: The winning family has always bought arm stiffness margin by thickening the arm itself while plate_thickness_scale sits pinned at pa12_cf's 0.80 floor with 0.5-1.6 of headroom never touched -- this keeps the exact winning short-arm geometry but shifts the stiffness budget to the deck plates (1.15) so the arm can go thinner (0.0035) with a touch less taper (waist 0.58) for a net mass/drag win untes

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 17, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 34, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 17, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 38, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 27, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 40, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 9, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.01 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.20 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.60 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.19 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.15 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.52 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pla_plus)": 2}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 19 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 designs. MOST should be PIVOTAL: abandon that shared trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space (a pivot that lands near the elites is usually a wasted round). BUT check first whether the elites are sitting short of a GENE BOUND (including one that was recently widened) rather than short of a hard constraint or a worse-material tradeoff — that is unexploited headroom, not a dead local optimum, and abandoning it wastes a proposal on a hypothesis (a different material, a different shape family) that the run's own history may already show loses on mass. When you find that headroom, spend ONE of your 3 proposals aggressively pushing the CURRENT winning family further into it instead of discarding it. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate e584eb50 — Every past width change moved only one direction (down, to 0.60-0.62) and always lost 0.19 Wh/km-agg, while the two attempts to raise width instead confounded it with an untapered waist and extreme 1.2 scale and failed on tip deflection -- this isolates a moderate width increase (0.92, well short of that failed 1.2 extreme) with the elite's own proven taper (waist 0.54) unchanged, using the added invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
candidate acb48776 — PET-CF has only ever been flown bundled with long arms (g51 1.05 scale, g53 1.05 scale), both of which lost by 0.6-0.7 Wh/km-agg and left material itself unjudged, exactly the confound that cf_plate isolation cleared in g53; this transplants the unchanged winning short-arm pa12_cf recipe onto pet_cf (material 0.40) with plate_thickness_scale held at the elite's already-compliant 0.8238, testing peinvalid — arm tip deflection (pet_cf)
candidate 939e58c1 — The rejected carbon-plate design was sound except plate_thickness_scale 0.55 produced 1.1mm webs against carbon's 1.2mm floor, so this raises plate_thickness_scale to 0.65 (real margin above the failing point) while holding every other gene -- including the untested low-taper arm and near-stock sweep -- exactly as designed.flew at 5.889 Wh/km
candidate f6a9a710 — rejected pre-flight (plates too thin for cf_plate (1.1 < 1.2 mm)) — Every carbon test so far varied only one structural axis at a time (g53 transplanted the pa12_cf recipe unchanged and lost 0.13, g56 thinned the arm alone to 0.0026 and closed the gap to 0.08) but none has ever also cut plate_thickness_scale below the 0.8 floor that only printed materials are bound by, leaving cf_plate's second real advantage untouched; this pairs a thin tapered arm (0.0028, waist

939e58c18328

5.889 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.11
cold_headwind	3.74
crosswind	3.60
gusty_light	3.48
hot_thin	3.32
storm	4.52

5cdac6ab7364

5.964 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.80
crosswind	3.66
gusty_light	3.52
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.57

edfd1f91cfd1

5.964 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.80
crosswind	3.66
gusty_light	3.52
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.57

16463dd9e9f5

5.972 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.81
crosswind	3.67
gusty_light	3.52
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.58

a6d43b5c7c76

5.972 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.81
crosswind	3.67
gusty_light	3.52
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.58

e577ecae1635

5.983 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.81
crosswind	3.67
gusty_light	3.53
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.59

0da13b61bd28

5.987 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.82
crosswind	3.68
gusty_light	3.53
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.59

873f4f11385d

5.988 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.82
crosswind	3.68
gusty_light	3.53
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.59

57f8cd5fe848

5.996 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.83
crosswind	3.68
gusty_light	3.54
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.60

fa6fe8ea3e9e

6.020 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.85
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.62

a7c3faf64e8d

6.047 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.87
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.57
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.64

511efe20a29b

6.072 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.20
cold_headwind	3.88
crosswind	3.73
gusty_light	3.58
hot_thin	3.41
storm	4.66

b781e855df2a

6.486 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.42
cold_headwind	4.14
crosswind	3.99
gusty_light	3.82
hot_thin	3.64
storm	4.97

65871d99541e

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pet_cf)

calm_warm	3.19
cold_headwind	3.85
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.57
hot_thin	3.40
storm	4.64

e584eb50dfe2

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.12
cold_headwind	3.77
crosswind	3.63
gusty_light	3.49
hot_thin	3.33
storm	4.54

acb487769a3a

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pet_cf)

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.83
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.62

generation 58

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 1 design(s) injected, 4 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	7
claude-designed	1
crossovers (tournament parents)	4
pivot crosses (far parent)	3
random immigrants	1

mutation σ 0.031 of gene range
pivot σ 0.049 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 58 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.55..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.4..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.0025..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.5..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257, g21 6.257, g22 6.172, g23 6.165, g24 6.144, g25 6.144, g26 6.144, g27 6.144, g28 6.144, g29 6.144, g30 6.144, g31 6.144, g32 6.144, g33 6.144, g34 6.144, g35 6.144, g36 6.113, g37 6.113, g38 6.113, g39 6.051, g40 6.048, g41 6.045, g42 6.038, g43 6.035, g44 6.027, g45 6.023, g46 6.023, g47 6.020, g48 6.019, g49 5.996, g50 5.996, g51 5.996, g52 5.992, g53 5.986, g54 5.980, g55 5.972, g56 5.972, g57 5.972 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 18 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 5.972 Wh/km-agg, frame 65 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7942, "arm_width_scale": 0.7789, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5556, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 37.6047, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.441, "plate_length_scale": 0.9786, "plate_width_scale": 1.0079, "deck_gap": 0.0381, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2665, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8003, "material": 0.285} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.15, "cold_headwind": 3.81, "crosswind": 3.67, "gusty_light": 3.52, "hot_thin": 3.36, "storm": 4.58}
fitness 5.972 Wh/km-agg, frame 65 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7942, "arm_width_scale": 0.7789, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5559, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 37.5987, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.441, "plate_length_scale": 0.9786, "plate_width_scale": 1.0079, "deck_gap": 0.0381, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2708, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8003, "material": 0.284} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.15, "cold_headwind": 3.81, "crosswind": 3.67, "gusty_light": 3.52, "hot_thin": 3.36, "storm": 4.58}
fitness 5.973 Wh/km-agg, frame 65 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7954, "arm_width_scale": 0.779, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5555, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 37.6663, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.4263, "plate_length_scale": 0.9785, "plate_width_scale": 1.0079, "deck_gap": 0.0381, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.264, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8, "material": 0.2869} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.15, "cold_headwind": 3.81, "crosswind": 3.67, "gusty_light": 3.52, "hot_thin": 3.36, "storm": 4.58}
fitness 5.973 Wh/km-agg, frame 65 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7942, "arm_width_scale": 0.7789, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5556, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 37.6047, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.441, "plate_length_scale": 0.9786, "plate_width_scale": 1.0079, "deck_gap": 0.0381, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2665, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8003, "material": 0.285} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.15, "cold_headwind": 3.81, "crosswind": 3.67, "gusty_light": 3.52, "hot_thin": 3.36, "storm": 4.58}
fitness 5.976 Wh/km-agg, frame 65 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7935, "arm_width_scale": 0.8007, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5563, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 36.8378, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.3933, "plate_length_scale": 0.9684, "plate_width_scale": 1.0259, "deck_gap": 0.038, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2249, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8011, "material": 0.2855} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.15, "cold_headwind": 3.81, "crosswind": 3.67, "gusty_light": 3.53, "hot_thin": 3.36, "storm": 4.58}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g49 `b5073af9` fitness 6.688 Wh/km-agg — was: The rear-sweep-opening pivot failed prescreen because rear sweep 50deg (+14 past the 36deg stock reference) was paired with only 1.16/1.05 plate growth -- well under the ~0.1-per-5deg rule for a 14deg offset -- so this keeps the same storm-gust rear-separation idea but grows plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to 1.28/1.18 to keep the tongue bolts seated, lengthens the arm to 1.05 (rather than sh
- g51 `4981aebc` fitness 6.484 Wh/km-agg — was: Both prescreen failures held arm_length_scale at the floor-mass 0.8 elite value while perturbing width/waist/sweep, so this pivots to genuinely long carbon arms (1.2, well clear of any tip-overlap margin) at true stock-ish sweep and zero wedge to isolate whether lower disk loading alone -- with no printed-material thickness floor -- beats the plateaued short-arm family.
- g51 `8b0b576d` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: Every long-arm pivot so far (g43/g44/g47/g48) switched to carbon to dodge the printed-material thickness floor and still lost by 0.2-1.3 Wh/km-agg, which points at carbon itself -- not the disk-loading lever -- as the losing variable, so this tests genuinely long arms (1.10, well beyond elite's 0.80) for lower induced power on PA12-CF, the material that's actually winning, with a moderate width/th
- g51 `ec33a483` fitness 6.728 Wh/km-agg — was: The failed batch tried sweep/width tweaks at short 0.8 arms and clipped rotor tip clearance, so this instead lengthens the arms to 1.05 for real radial margin while genuinely opening both sweeps for storm-gust rotor separation, growing plate_length/width by ~0.22 per the offset-to-plate-growth rule so the swept tongue bolts stay seated, on never-validly-flown PET-CF at real stiffness margin.
- g52 `1633db9f` fitness 6.942 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior max-wedge attempt on ASA/PETG/PLA+ carried insufficient arm margin and failed on tip deflection before the frontal-area benefit could even be measured; this stacks near-max wedge (14deg) with a deliberately over-built ASA arm (1.1 width, 0.9 waist, 0.008 thickness -- well past anything previously tried) at true stock sweep/plate scale so no other confound can explain a loss if wedge st
- g52 `e44921a6` fitness 6.606 Wh/km-agg — was: PLA+ has only ever been flown once (at insufficient margin, failing arm tip deflection) and never isolated with real stiffness margin, so this pairs it with a thick low-taper arm cross-section (0.9 waist = minimal narrowing, 0.0065 thickness) at moderate length and true stock-ish sweep/plate scale to test whether the material itself -- not just PA12-CF's floor-mass recipe -- can survive and compet
- g53 `5780394b` fitness 6.118 Wh/km-agg — was: Carbon has been tested many times but always bundled with long arms, max wedge, or opened sweep, so it has never been isolated at the exact geometry that is actually winning (short 0.80 arm, narrow 0.78/0.56 width/waist, near-zero wedge, near-stock sweep); this transplants the winning PA12-CF recipe onto cf_plate unchanged except for exploiting carbon's freedom from the 0.8 printed-material thickn
- g53 `8d850bc7` fitness 6.624 Wh/km-agg — was: The one clean PA12-CF long-arm attempt (g51, 1.10 scale) failed on arm tip deflection from insufficient stiffness margin, and every other long-arm test switched to carbon to dodge the thickness floor and lost by 0.5-1.3 Wh/km-agg anyway, so material was never cleared as the losing variable; this pairs a moderate-long arm (1.05, well short of the failed 1.10) with genuinely reinforced width/waist/t
- g53 `e83b6dd5` fitness 6.012 Wh/km-agg — was: The prescreen failure was caused by the reduced arm_length_scale (0.76, below the elite's 0.797) creating rotor tip overlap, not by the deck_gap push -- so this restores the exact elite arm_length_scale while keeping deck_gap at its 0.045 max to still test whether the current winning family has unexploited standoff headroom.
- g54 `345feac1` fitness 6.829 Wh/km-agg — was: The long-arm carbon build for lower disk loading failed because its 7deg rear-sweep offset from stock outgrew the unchanged 1.0 plate scale and dropped the tongue bolts off the plate, so this keeps the same long-arm/opened-sweep concept but grows plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to 1.12/1.10 per the offset-to-plate-growth rule to keep the bolts seated.
- g54 `6cac436f` fitness 6.165 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family is pinned simultaneously against the rotor-overlap arm-length floor, the web-crush plate-scale floor, and the printed-material thickness floor, but arm_width_scale sits at 0.78 while its bound is 0.55 and no earlier proposal isolated a width cut in this exact winning geometry, so this pushes width down to 0.62 with waist relief and added thickness as compensating stiffness margin 
- g55 `34b02229` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: Every elite and nearly every prior pivot has stiffened the arm the same way -- moderate thickness plus a strong mid-shaft taper (waist ~0.55) -- and mass has stalled at the 65g floor for that recipe; this abandons the taper strategy entirely for a thin, narrow, untapered shaft (waist pushed to 0.95, near no narrowing) that relies on constant cross-section rather than thickness or taper for stiffne
- g55 `75e5d886` fitness 6.163 Wh/km-agg — was: The one prior width-cut attempt (g54, width 0.62) changed width, waist, and thickness together and lost, so the width-vs-drag trade was never isolated; this holds arm_length, waist, sweep, plate scale, deck_gap, wedge, and material exactly at elite values and changes only width (down to 0.60, well below elite's 0.77) paired with a large thickness increase (0.0062) as pure cross-section stiffness c
- g55 `b8d03e14` fitness 6.024 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm sits pack-limited and flat (4.59-4.60) across the entire elite family, so remaining gains must come from cutting the other five scenarios' drag rather than mass, and battery_wedge_deg is an almost entirely unexploited gene bound (elite sits at 0.23-0.35 of a 0-15 range) that was never cleanly tested on the exact winning short-arm PA12-CF geometry (every prior wedge test bundled it with a wea
- g56 `5ed32770` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: Every stiffening attempt so far leaned on mid-shaft taper plus thickness and the one no-taper test (g55) failed tip deflection because it didn't compensate with real width, so this pivots to a wide, untapered 'ribbon' arm (width pushed to 1.20, waist relieved to 1.05 for near-constant cross-section) carrying stiffness through width instead of thickness, letting arm_thickness drop to 0.0030 while k
- g56 `d3f2fb06` fitness 6.051 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior carbon test just transplanted the pa12_cf floor-thickness recipe onto carbon and lost by a wide margin, never exploiting carbon's actual two advantages -- no printed-material thickness floor and a better stiffness-to-weight ratio -- so this pivots to genuinely thin (0.0026 m) carbon arms near the true minimum, aggressively tapered (waist 0.45) with moderate width (0.95) for root streng
- g56 `f8b8a58e` fitness 5.973 Wh/km-agg — was: The failed vector was the current top elite's exact geometry with deck_gap cut to 0.027, which put the rotor disk too close to the deck/battery stack; restoring deck_gap to the elite's proven 0.0381 while keeping every other gene identical removes that single constraint violation without touching the validated aerodynamic/mass tradeoffs.
- g57 `d5b8430e` fitness 6.017 Wh/km-agg — was: arm_waist_scale has sat frozen at ~0.556 across every elite for the entire plateau despite a floor of 0.4, meaning the mid-shaft taper lever was never actually pushed -- this keeps the exact winning PA12-CF short-arm geometry unchanged except deepening the waist cut to 0.42 (near its bound) with a compensating thickness bump to 0.0050 to hold stiffness margin, isolating unexploited drag headroom r
- g57 `dd8058c9` fitness 6.131 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior sweep-opening test bundled it with longer arms and lost, so sweep was never isolated on the actual winning short-arm geometry; this holds arm_length/width/waist/thickness/material/deck_gap/wedge exactly at elite values and opens front/rear sweep to 42/48 deg (offsets of +10.6/+12 from stock) with plate_length/width grown to 1.22/1.24 per the offset-to-plate-growth rule, testing whether
- g57 `de6b8ddc` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: The failure was rotor-disk tip overlap from pairing near-stock arm_length_scale (0.8) with a wide, untapered arm (width 1.0, waist 0.75) that pushes prop tips outward without added radial reach, so this keeps the wide/untapered-arm stiffness concept and PETG material but lengthens the arm to 1.0 for genuine tip clearance and nudges rear sweep/plate scale slightly to stay within the offset-to-plate

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 17, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 34, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 17, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 38, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 27, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 37, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 9, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.01 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.20 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.60 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.19 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.15 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.52 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pla_plus)": 2}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 18 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 designs. MOST should be PIVOTAL: abandon that shared trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space (a pivot that lands near the elites is usually a wasted round). BUT check first whether the elites are sitting short of a GENE BOUND (including one that was recently widened) rather than short of a hard constraint or a worse-material tradeoff — that is unexploited headroom, not a dead local optimum, and abandoning it wastes a proposal on a hypothesis (a different material, a different shape family) that the run's own history may already show loses on mass. When you find that headroom, spend ONE of your 3 proposals aggressively pushing the CURRENT winning family further into it instead of discarding it. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate e09e735b — The winning family has always bought arm stiffness margin by thickening the arm itself while plate_thickness_scale sits pinned at pa12_cf's 0.80 floor with 0.5-1.6 of headroom never touched -- this keeps the exact winning short-arm geometry but shifts the stiffness budget to the deck plates (1.15) so the arm can go thinner (0.0035) with a touch less taper (waist 0.58) for a net mass/drag win untesinvalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
candidate c543c72e — rejected pre-flight (plates too thin for cf_plate (1.1 < 1.2 mm)) — Every carbon test so far either transplanted the pa12_cf recipe unchanged (g53, lost by only 0.15) or went to long arms (lost by 0.2-1.3), so carbon's real advantages -- no 1.6mm printed floor and better stiffness-to-weight -- were never used to reoptimize width and thickness together on the SAME short-arm geometry that's winning; this cuts arm width to 0.62, thickness to 0.0030, and plate thickne
candidate 5025c0ba — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — Every prior sweep pivot opened BOTH sweeps symmetrically and lost, but no one has tried the asymmetric case -- front held near true stock (32deg, minimizing frontal area for headwind/crosswind) while rear is pushed hard toward its 62deg bound for genuine prop-wake separation -- so this tests that untried topology on the winning arm/material recipe with arm length nudged to 0.85 for tip clearance a
candidate 33ead880 — rejected pre-flight (plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)) — The width-cut-on-carbon test failed only on cf_plate's harder minimum web thickness (1.2mm, not the printed-material 1.6mm floor) at plate_thickness_scale 0.55, so this keeps the aggressive arm_width_scale=0.62 cut and thin carbon plates but raises plate_thickness_scale to 0.65 (1.3mm, clears the cf_plate floor with margin) and nudges plate_length/width to 0.97 to stay off the web-crush floor, iso
candidate ff4a0007 — rejected pre-flight (rotor too close to deck/battery) — The rear-sweep-opening vector failed because a 22deg rear offset from stock needed roughly 1.32 plate scale by the offset-to-plate-growth rule but only got 1.18, and sweep-opening has lost every time it's been tried anyway, so this replacement instead isolates deck_gap in the untested downward direction -- holding the exact winning elite geometry fixed and cutting the standoff from 0.038 to 0.027,

edfd1f91cfd1

5.964 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.80
crosswind	3.66
gusty_light	3.52
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.57

16463dd9e9f5

5.972 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.81
crosswind	3.67
gusty_light	3.52
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.58

a6d43b5c7c76

5.972 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.81
crosswind	3.67
gusty_light	3.52
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.58

c20b08fce302

5.973 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.81
crosswind	3.67
gusty_light	3.52
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.58

3f4703e7772e

5.980 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.81
crosswind	3.67
gusty_light	3.53
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.59

37aa22699f66

5.982 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.82
crosswind	3.67
gusty_light	3.53
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.59

3c1628023f95

5.987 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.82
crosswind	3.68
gusty_light	3.53
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.60

873f4f11385d

5.988 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.82
crosswind	3.68
gusty_light	3.53
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.59

f8f95071414b

5.999 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.83
crosswind	3.68
gusty_light	3.54
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.60

37e5b6c91c06

6.010 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.84
crosswind	3.69
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.61

d5b8430e6524

6.017 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.84
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.62

53982ac0bb5d

6.891 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.63
cold_headwind	4.39
crosswind	4.24
gusty_light	4.06
hot_thin	3.87
storm	5.29

49a0fe9fc938

6.903 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.63
cold_headwind	4.40
crosswind	4.25
gusty_light	4.06
hot_thin	3.88
storm	5.30

20cc5c47d345

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.81
crosswind	3.67
gusty_light	3.53
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.58

53432e0d1d7d

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.85
crosswind	3.69
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.62

e09e735ba529

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.80
crosswind	3.67
gusty_light	3.53
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.59

generation 57

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 3 design(s) injected, 1 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	4
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	3
pivot crosses (far parent)	5
random immigrants	1

mutation σ 0.032 of gene range
pivot σ 0.051 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 57 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.55..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.4..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.0025..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.5..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257, g21 6.257, g22 6.172, g23 6.165, g24 6.144, g25 6.144, g26 6.144, g27 6.144, g28 6.144, g29 6.144, g30 6.144, g31 6.144, g32 6.144, g33 6.144, g34 6.144, g35 6.144, g36 6.113, g37 6.113, g38 6.113, g39 6.051, g40 6.048, g41 6.045, g42 6.038, g43 6.035, g44 6.027, g45 6.023, g46 6.023, g47 6.020, g48 6.019, g49 5.996, g50 5.996, g51 5.996, g52 5.992, g53 5.986, g54 5.980, g55 5.972, g56 5.972 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 17 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 5.972 Wh/km-agg, frame 65 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7942, "arm_width_scale": 0.7789, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5556, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 37.6047, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.441, "plate_length_scale": 0.9786, "plate_width_scale": 1.0079, "deck_gap": 0.0381, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2665, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8003, "material": 0.285} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.15, "cold_headwind": 3.81, "crosswind": 3.67, "gusty_light": 3.52, "hot_thin": 3.36, "storm": 4.58}
fitness 5.972 Wh/km-agg, frame 65 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7942, "arm_width_scale": 0.7789, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5559, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 37.5987, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.441, "plate_length_scale": 0.9786, "plate_width_scale": 1.0079, "deck_gap": 0.0381, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2708, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8003, "material": 0.284} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.15, "cold_headwind": 3.81, "crosswind": 3.67, "gusty_light": 3.52, "hot_thin": 3.36, "storm": 4.58}
fitness 5.973 Wh/km-agg, frame 65 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7942, "arm_width_scale": 0.7789, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5556, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 37.6047, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.441, "plate_length_scale": 0.9786, "plate_width_scale": 1.0079, "deck_gap": 0.0381, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2665, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8003, "material": 0.285} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.15, "cold_headwind": 3.81, "crosswind": 3.67, "gusty_light": 3.52, "hot_thin": 3.36, "storm": 4.58}
fitness 5.980 Wh/km-agg, frame 65 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7964, "arm_width_scale": 0.7725, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5616, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 35.4692, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.6605, "plate_length_scale": 0.9631, "plate_width_scale": 0.9998, "deck_gap": 0.0389, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.3474, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8139, "material": 0.2768} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.15, "cold_headwind": 3.81, "crosswind": 3.67, "gusty_light": 3.53, "hot_thin": 3.36, "storm": 4.59}
fitness 5.982 Wh/km-agg, frame 65 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7942, "arm_width_scale": 0.801, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5556, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 36.8408, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.441, "plate_length_scale": 0.9786, "plate_width_scale": 1.0306, "deck_gap": 0.0381, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2665, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8003, "material": 0.285} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.15, "cold_headwind": 3.82, "crosswind": 3.67, "gusty_light": 3.53, "hot_thin": 3.36, "storm": 4.59}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g48 `f947db57` fitness 6.605 Wh/km-agg — was: Same wide-arm/thick-shaft storm-hardened carbon build as the failed attempt, but with reduced sweep offsets (38/45 instead of 41/49) and correspondingly larger plate scales (1.2/1.18 instead of 1.15/1.15) so the swept tongue bolts stay seated on the main plate per the offset-to-plate-growth coupling.
- g49 `83c3edff` fitness 6.402 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family is PA12-CF held right at the printed-material thickness floor with minimal stiffness margin, so mass is already at its practical minimum for that material and storm sits flat at 4.62 regardless of small gene tweaks; this pivots to PET-CF (never validly flown per the failure histogram) at genuine, not floor, stiffness margin with true stock sweep and moderate arm length, iso
- g49 `98d59d77` INVALID (arm tip deflection (asa)) — was: The wide-arm/narrow-waist storm-hardened build failed prescreen on rotor disk overlap because it stacked short arm_length_scale (0.85) with max width (1.15) and an aggressive waist cut (0.45) at narrow sweep, so this keeps the genuinely-wide, real-stiffness ASA arm concept but lengthens the arm to 1.1 for disk clearance, eases width/waist to 1.05/0.6, and holds both sweeps near stock so no plate-s
- g49 `b5073af9` fitness 6.688 Wh/km-agg — was: The rear-sweep-opening pivot failed prescreen because rear sweep 50deg (+14 past the 36deg stock reference) was paired with only 1.16/1.05 plate growth -- well under the ~0.1-per-5deg rule for a 14deg offset -- so this keeps the same storm-gust rear-separation idea but grows plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to 1.28/1.18 to keep the tongue bolts seated, lengthens the arm to 1.05 (rather than sh
- g51 `4981aebc` fitness 6.484 Wh/km-agg — was: Both prescreen failures held arm_length_scale at the floor-mass 0.8 elite value while perturbing width/waist/sweep, so this pivots to genuinely long carbon arms (1.2, well clear of any tip-overlap margin) at true stock-ish sweep and zero wedge to isolate whether lower disk loading alone -- with no printed-material thickness floor -- beats the plateaued short-arm family.
- g51 `8b0b576d` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: Every long-arm pivot so far (g43/g44/g47/g48) switched to carbon to dodge the printed-material thickness floor and still lost by 0.2-1.3 Wh/km-agg, which points at carbon itself -- not the disk-loading lever -- as the losing variable, so this tests genuinely long arms (1.10, well beyond elite's 0.80) for lower induced power on PA12-CF, the material that's actually winning, with a moderate width/th
- g51 `ec33a483` fitness 6.728 Wh/km-agg — was: The failed batch tried sweep/width tweaks at short 0.8 arms and clipped rotor tip clearance, so this instead lengthens the arms to 1.05 for real radial margin while genuinely opening both sweeps for storm-gust rotor separation, growing plate_length/width by ~0.22 per the offset-to-plate-growth rule so the swept tongue bolts stay seated, on never-validly-flown PET-CF at real stiffness margin.
- g52 `1633db9f` fitness 6.942 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior max-wedge attempt on ASA/PETG/PLA+ carried insufficient arm margin and failed on tip deflection before the frontal-area benefit could even be measured; this stacks near-max wedge (14deg) with a deliberately over-built ASA arm (1.1 width, 0.9 waist, 0.008 thickness -- well past anything previously tried) at true stock sweep/plate scale so no other confound can explain a loss if wedge st
- g52 `e44921a6` fitness 6.606 Wh/km-agg — was: PLA+ has only ever been flown once (at insufficient margin, failing arm tip deflection) and never isolated with real stiffness margin, so this pairs it with a thick low-taper arm cross-section (0.9 waist = minimal narrowing, 0.0065 thickness) at moderate length and true stock-ish sweep/plate scale to test whether the material itself -- not just PA12-CF's floor-mass recipe -- can survive and compet
- g53 `5780394b` fitness 6.118 Wh/km-agg — was: Carbon has been tested many times but always bundled with long arms, max wedge, or opened sweep, so it has never been isolated at the exact geometry that is actually winning (short 0.80 arm, narrow 0.78/0.56 width/waist, near-zero wedge, near-stock sweep); this transplants the winning PA12-CF recipe onto cf_plate unchanged except for exploiting carbon's freedom from the 0.8 printed-material thickn
- g53 `8d850bc7` fitness 6.624 Wh/km-agg — was: The one clean PA12-CF long-arm attempt (g51, 1.10 scale) failed on arm tip deflection from insufficient stiffness margin, and every other long-arm test switched to carbon to dodge the thickness floor and lost by 0.5-1.3 Wh/km-agg anyway, so material was never cleared as the losing variable; this pairs a moderate-long arm (1.05, well short of the failed 1.10) with genuinely reinforced width/waist/t
- g53 `e83b6dd5` fitness 6.012 Wh/km-agg — was: The prescreen failure was caused by the reduced arm_length_scale (0.76, below the elite's 0.797) creating rotor tip overlap, not by the deck_gap push -- so this restores the exact elite arm_length_scale while keeping deck_gap at its 0.045 max to still test whether the current winning family has unexploited standoff headroom.
- g54 `345feac1` fitness 6.829 Wh/km-agg — was: The long-arm carbon build for lower disk loading failed because its 7deg rear-sweep offset from stock outgrew the unchanged 1.0 plate scale and dropped the tongue bolts off the plate, so this keeps the same long-arm/opened-sweep concept but grows plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to 1.12/1.10 per the offset-to-plate-growth rule to keep the bolts seated.
- g54 `6cac436f` fitness 6.165 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family is pinned simultaneously against the rotor-overlap arm-length floor, the web-crush plate-scale floor, and the printed-material thickness floor, but arm_width_scale sits at 0.78 while its bound is 0.55 and no earlier proposal isolated a width cut in this exact winning geometry, so this pushes width down to 0.62 with waist relief and added thickness as compensating stiffness margin 
- g55 `34b02229` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: Every elite and nearly every prior pivot has stiffened the arm the same way -- moderate thickness plus a strong mid-shaft taper (waist ~0.55) -- and mass has stalled at the 65g floor for that recipe; this abandons the taper strategy entirely for a thin, narrow, untapered shaft (waist pushed to 0.95, near no narrowing) that relies on constant cross-section rather than thickness or taper for stiffne
- g55 `75e5d886` fitness 6.163 Wh/km-agg — was: The one prior width-cut attempt (g54, width 0.62) changed width, waist, and thickness together and lost, so the width-vs-drag trade was never isolated; this holds arm_length, waist, sweep, plate scale, deck_gap, wedge, and material exactly at elite values and changes only width (down to 0.60, well below elite's 0.77) paired with a large thickness increase (0.0062) as pure cross-section stiffness c
- g55 `b8d03e14` fitness 6.024 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm sits pack-limited and flat (4.59-4.60) across the entire elite family, so remaining gains must come from cutting the other five scenarios' drag rather than mass, and battery_wedge_deg is an almost entirely unexploited gene bound (elite sits at 0.23-0.35 of a 0-15 range) that was never cleanly tested on the exact winning short-arm PA12-CF geometry (every prior wedge test bundled it with a wea
- g56 `5ed32770` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: Every stiffening attempt so far leaned on mid-shaft taper plus thickness and the one no-taper test (g55) failed tip deflection because it didn't compensate with real width, so this pivots to a wide, untapered 'ribbon' arm (width pushed to 1.20, waist relieved to 1.05 for near-constant cross-section) carrying stiffness through width instead of thickness, letting arm_thickness drop to 0.0030 while k
- g56 `d3f2fb06` fitness 6.051 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior carbon test just transplanted the pa12_cf floor-thickness recipe onto carbon and lost by a wide margin, never exploiting carbon's actual two advantages -- no printed-material thickness floor and a better stiffness-to-weight ratio -- so this pivots to genuinely thin (0.0026 m) carbon arms near the true minimum, aggressively tapered (waist 0.45) with moderate width (0.95) for root streng
- g56 `f8b8a58e` fitness 5.973 Wh/km-agg — was: The failed vector was the current top elite's exact geometry with deck_gap cut to 0.027, which put the rotor disk too close to the deck/battery stack; restoring deck_gap to the elite's proven 0.0381 while keeping every other gene identical removes that single constraint violation without touching the validated aerodynamic/mass tradeoffs.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 17, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 34, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 17, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 38, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 27, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 34, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 8, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.01 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.20 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.60 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.19 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.15 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.52 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pla_plus)": 2}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 17 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 designs. MOST should be PIVOTAL: abandon that shared trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space (a pivot that lands near the elites is usually a wasted round). BUT check first whether the elites are sitting short of a GENE BOUND (including one that was recently widened) rather than short of a hard constraint or a worse-material tradeoff — that is unexploited headroom, not a dead local optimum, and abandoning it wastes a proposal on a hypothesis (a different material, a different shape family) that the run's own history may already show loses on mass. When you find that headroom, spend ONE of your 3 proposals aggressively pushing the CURRENT winning family further into it instead of discarding it. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate dd8058c9 — Every prior sweep-opening test bundled it with longer arms and lost, so sweep was never isolated on the actual winning short-arm geometry; this holds arm_length/width/waist/thickness/material/deck_gap/wedge exactly at elite values and opens front/rear sweep to 42/48 deg (offsets of +10.6/+12 from stock) with plate_length/width grown to 1.22/1.24 per the offset-to-plate-growth rule, testing whetherflew at 6.131 Wh/km
candidate d5b8430e — arm_waist_scale has sat frozen at ~0.556 across every elite for the entire plateau despite a floor of 0.4, meaning the mid-shaft taper lever was never actually pushed -- this keeps the exact winning PA12-CF short-arm geometry unchanged except deepening the waist cut to 0.42 (near its bound) with a compensating thickness bump to 0.0050 to hold stiffness margin, isolating unexploited drag headroom rflew at 6.017 Wh/km
candidate de6b8ddc — The failure was rotor-disk tip overlap from pairing near-stock arm_length_scale (0.8) with a wide, untapered arm (width 1.0, waist 0.75) that pushes prop tips outward without added radial reach, so this keeps the wide/untapered-arm stiffness concept and PETG material but lengthens the arm to 1.0 for genuine tip clearance and nudges rear sweep/plate scale slightly to stay within the offset-to-plateinvalid — arm tip deflection (petg)
candidate cc58ce08 — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Every material besides PA12-CF has only ever been flown at insufficient stiffness margin (PETG failed tip deflection 8 times) so the material lever itself was never cleared as a loser; this isolates PETG with genuinely reinforced width/waist/thickness (1.0/0.75/0.0058, well past any prior PETG attempt) at the exact winning short-arm length and stock-ish sweep so a loss can only be blamed on the ma

16463dd9e9f5

5.972 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.81
crosswind	3.67
gusty_light	3.52
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.58

a6d43b5c7c76

5.972 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.81
crosswind	3.67
gusty_light	3.52
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.58

c20b08fce302

5.973 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.81
crosswind	3.67
gusty_light	3.52
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.58

5644cd5d9659

5.976 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.81
crosswind	3.67
gusty_light	3.53
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.58

3f4703e7772e

5.980 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.81
crosswind	3.67
gusty_light	3.53
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.59

37aa22699f66

5.982 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.82
crosswind	3.67
gusty_light	3.53
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.59

3c1628023f95

5.987 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.82
crosswind	3.68
gusty_light	3.53
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.60

4063089700ab

5.987 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.82
crosswind	3.67
gusty_light	3.53
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.59

dace2ad0b81d

6.009 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.84
crosswind	3.69
gusty_light	3.54
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.61

d5b8430e6524

6.017 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.84
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.62

dd8058c94bc8

6.131 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.22
cold_headwind	3.93
crosswind	3.77
gusty_light	3.61
hot_thin	3.43
storm	4.71

ad79444f76c2

6.891 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.63
cold_headwind	4.39
crosswind	4.24
gusty_light	4.06
hot_thin	3.87
storm	5.29

823853d4db89

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.13
cold_headwind	3.78
crosswind	3.64
gusty_light	3.50
hot_thin	3.33
storm	4.55

3f6d0c492251

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.14
cold_headwind	3.81
crosswind	3.66
gusty_light	3.52
hot_thin	3.35
storm	4.58

ede5a70c9cc5

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.84
crosswind	3.69
gusty_light	3.54
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.61

de6b8ddc7117

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (petg)

calm_warm	3.38
cold_headwind	4.17
crosswind	3.99
gusty_light	3.81
hot_thin	3.61
storm	4.97

generation 56

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 3 design(s) injected, 1 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	3
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	2
mutants (single parent)	1
pivot crosses (far parent)	6
random immigrants	1

mutation σ 0.033 of gene range
pivot σ 0.052 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 56 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.55..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.4..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.0025..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.5..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257, g21 6.257, g22 6.172, g23 6.165, g24 6.144, g25 6.144, g26 6.144, g27 6.144, g28 6.144, g29 6.144, g30 6.144, g31 6.144, g32 6.144, g33 6.144, g34 6.144, g35 6.144, g36 6.113, g37 6.113, g38 6.113, g39 6.051, g40 6.048, g41 6.045, g42 6.038, g43 6.035, g44 6.027, g45 6.023, g46 6.023, g47 6.020, g48 6.019, g49 5.996, g50 5.996, g51 5.996, g52 5.992, g53 5.986, g54 5.980, g55 5.972 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 16 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 5.972 Wh/km-agg, frame 65 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7942, "arm_width_scale": 0.7789, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5556, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 37.6047, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.441, "plate_length_scale": 0.9786, "plate_width_scale": 1.0079, "deck_gap": 0.0381, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2665, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8003, "material": 0.285} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.15, "cold_headwind": 3.81, "crosswind": 3.67, "gusty_light": 3.52, "hot_thin": 3.36, "storm": 4.58}
fitness 5.980 Wh/km-agg, frame 65 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7964, "arm_width_scale": 0.7725, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5616, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 35.4692, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.6605, "plate_length_scale": 0.9631, "plate_width_scale": 0.9998, "deck_gap": 0.0389, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.3474, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8139, "material": 0.2768} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.15, "cold_headwind": 3.81, "crosswind": 3.67, "gusty_light": 3.53, "hot_thin": 3.36, "storm": 4.59}
fitness 5.985 Wh/km-agg, frame 65 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8009, "arm_width_scale": 0.7819, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5512, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 37.6657, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.4699, "plate_length_scale": 0.9708, "plate_width_scale": 1.0236, "deck_gap": 0.0387, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.228, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8, "material": 0.2634} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.16, "cold_headwind": 3.82, "crosswind": 3.68, "gusty_light": 3.53, "hot_thin": 3.36, "storm": 4.59}
fitness 5.986 Wh/km-agg, frame 65 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7939, "arm_width_scale": 0.7818, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5527, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 37.3511, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.4773, "plate_length_scale": 0.9695, "plate_width_scale": 1.0041, "deck_gap": 0.0391, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2283, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8012, "material": 0.261} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.15, "cold_headwind": 3.82, "crosswind": 3.67, "gusty_light": 3.53, "hot_thin": 3.36, "storm": 4.59}
fitness 5.986 Wh/km-agg, frame 65 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.797, "arm_width_scale": 0.7818, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5527, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 37.3493, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.4773, "plate_length_scale": 0.9695, "plate_width_scale": 1.0041, "deck_gap": 0.0391, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2283, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8011, "material": 0.2611} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.15, "cold_headwind": 3.82, "crosswind": 3.67, "gusty_light": 3.53, "hot_thin": 3.36, "storm": 4.59}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g47 `ba60c54f` fitness 7.180 Wh/km-agg — was: Every long-arm pivot so far paired moderate arm length with either extra stiffness overhead or a wedge confound and lost; this pushes arm length near its max for genuinely low disk loading, opens both sweeps for real rotor separation against storm gusts, and uses carbon (no printed-material thickness floor) with proportionally grown plates so the swept tongue bolts stay seated.
- g48 `79ec1e75` fitness 7.265 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family is floor-mass PA12-CF at short arms with minimal stiffness margin and storm is stuck at 4.62-4.64 across all of them; this abandons that trait for carbon (no printed-material thickness floor) at genuinely long arms with real width/thickness stiffness margin instead of a thickness-floor minimum, and holds sweep close to stock with zero wedge so long-arm disk-loading reductio
- g48 `b799a97f` fitness 6.936 Wh/km-agg — was: Full battery wedge for frontal-area cut has only ever been validly flown on floor-margin printed materials that then failed arm tip deflection, or bundled with long arms/sweep changes; this pairs the full 15 deg wedge with carbon (dodging the printed-material thickness floor) and genuine, not minimal, arm/plate stiffness margin at near-stock sweep so the frame can actually survive long enough to t
- g48 `f947db57` fitness 6.605 Wh/km-agg — was: Same wide-arm/thick-shaft storm-hardened carbon build as the failed attempt, but with reduced sweep offsets (38/45 instead of 41/49) and correspondingly larger plate scales (1.2/1.18 instead of 1.15/1.15) so the swept tongue bolts stay seated on the main plate per the offset-to-plate-growth coupling.
- g49 `83c3edff` fitness 6.402 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family is PA12-CF held right at the printed-material thickness floor with minimal stiffness margin, so mass is already at its practical minimum for that material and storm sits flat at 4.62 regardless of small gene tweaks; this pivots to PET-CF (never validly flown per the failure histogram) at genuine, not floor, stiffness margin with true stock sweep and moderate arm length, iso
- g49 `98d59d77` INVALID (arm tip deflection (asa)) — was: The wide-arm/narrow-waist storm-hardened build failed prescreen on rotor disk overlap because it stacked short arm_length_scale (0.85) with max width (1.15) and an aggressive waist cut (0.45) at narrow sweep, so this keeps the genuinely-wide, real-stiffness ASA arm concept but lengthens the arm to 1.1 for disk clearance, eases width/waist to 1.05/0.6, and holds both sweeps near stock so no plate-s
- g49 `b5073af9` fitness 6.688 Wh/km-agg — was: The rear-sweep-opening pivot failed prescreen because rear sweep 50deg (+14 past the 36deg stock reference) was paired with only 1.16/1.05 plate growth -- well under the ~0.1-per-5deg rule for a 14deg offset -- so this keeps the same storm-gust rear-separation idea but grows plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to 1.28/1.18 to keep the tongue bolts seated, lengthens the arm to 1.05 (rather than sh
- g51 `4981aebc` fitness 6.484 Wh/km-agg — was: Both prescreen failures held arm_length_scale at the floor-mass 0.8 elite value while perturbing width/waist/sweep, so this pivots to genuinely long carbon arms (1.2, well clear of any tip-overlap margin) at true stock-ish sweep and zero wedge to isolate whether lower disk loading alone -- with no printed-material thickness floor -- beats the plateaued short-arm family.
- g51 `8b0b576d` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: Every long-arm pivot so far (g43/g44/g47/g48) switched to carbon to dodge the printed-material thickness floor and still lost by 0.2-1.3 Wh/km-agg, which points at carbon itself -- not the disk-loading lever -- as the losing variable, so this tests genuinely long arms (1.10, well beyond elite's 0.80) for lower induced power on PA12-CF, the material that's actually winning, with a moderate width/th
- g51 `ec33a483` fitness 6.728 Wh/km-agg — was: The failed batch tried sweep/width tweaks at short 0.8 arms and clipped rotor tip clearance, so this instead lengthens the arms to 1.05 for real radial margin while genuinely opening both sweeps for storm-gust rotor separation, growing plate_length/width by ~0.22 per the offset-to-plate-growth rule so the swept tongue bolts stay seated, on never-validly-flown PET-CF at real stiffness margin.
- g52 `1633db9f` fitness 6.942 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior max-wedge attempt on ASA/PETG/PLA+ carried insufficient arm margin and failed on tip deflection before the frontal-area benefit could even be measured; this stacks near-max wedge (14deg) with a deliberately over-built ASA arm (1.1 width, 0.9 waist, 0.008 thickness -- well past anything previously tried) at true stock sweep/plate scale so no other confound can explain a loss if wedge st
- g52 `e44921a6` fitness 6.606 Wh/km-agg — was: PLA+ has only ever been flown once (at insufficient margin, failing arm tip deflection) and never isolated with real stiffness margin, so this pairs it with a thick low-taper arm cross-section (0.9 waist = minimal narrowing, 0.0065 thickness) at moderate length and true stock-ish sweep/plate scale to test whether the material itself -- not just PA12-CF's floor-mass recipe -- can survive and compet
- g53 `5780394b` fitness 6.118 Wh/km-agg — was: Carbon has been tested many times but always bundled with long arms, max wedge, or opened sweep, so it has never been isolated at the exact geometry that is actually winning (short 0.80 arm, narrow 0.78/0.56 width/waist, near-zero wedge, near-stock sweep); this transplants the winning PA12-CF recipe onto cf_plate unchanged except for exploiting carbon's freedom from the 0.8 printed-material thickn
- g53 `8d850bc7` fitness 6.624 Wh/km-agg — was: The one clean PA12-CF long-arm attempt (g51, 1.10 scale) failed on arm tip deflection from insufficient stiffness margin, and every other long-arm test switched to carbon to dodge the thickness floor and lost by 0.5-1.3 Wh/km-agg anyway, so material was never cleared as the losing variable; this pairs a moderate-long arm (1.05, well short of the failed 1.10) with genuinely reinforced width/waist/t
- g53 `e83b6dd5` fitness 6.012 Wh/km-agg — was: The prescreen failure was caused by the reduced arm_length_scale (0.76, below the elite's 0.797) creating rotor tip overlap, not by the deck_gap push -- so this restores the exact elite arm_length_scale while keeping deck_gap at its 0.045 max to still test whether the current winning family has unexploited standoff headroom.
- g54 `345feac1` fitness 6.829 Wh/km-agg — was: The long-arm carbon build for lower disk loading failed because its 7deg rear-sweep offset from stock outgrew the unchanged 1.0 plate scale and dropped the tongue bolts off the plate, so this keeps the same long-arm/opened-sweep concept but grows plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to 1.12/1.10 per the offset-to-plate-growth rule to keep the bolts seated.
- g54 `6cac436f` fitness 6.165 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family is pinned simultaneously against the rotor-overlap arm-length floor, the web-crush plate-scale floor, and the printed-material thickness floor, but arm_width_scale sits at 0.78 while its bound is 0.55 and no earlier proposal isolated a width cut in this exact winning geometry, so this pushes width down to 0.62 with waist relief and added thickness as compensating stiffness margin 
- g55 `34b02229` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: Every elite and nearly every prior pivot has stiffened the arm the same way -- moderate thickness plus a strong mid-shaft taper (waist ~0.55) -- and mass has stalled at the 65g floor for that recipe; this abandons the taper strategy entirely for a thin, narrow, untapered shaft (waist pushed to 0.95, near no narrowing) that relies on constant cross-section rather than thickness or taper for stiffne
- g55 `75e5d886` fitness 6.163 Wh/km-agg — was: The one prior width-cut attempt (g54, width 0.62) changed width, waist, and thickness together and lost, so the width-vs-drag trade was never isolated; this holds arm_length, waist, sweep, plate scale, deck_gap, wedge, and material exactly at elite values and changes only width (down to 0.60, well below elite's 0.77) paired with a large thickness increase (0.0062) as pure cross-section stiffness c
- g55 `b8d03e14` fitness 6.024 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm sits pack-limited and flat (4.59-4.60) across the entire elite family, so remaining gains must come from cutting the other five scenarios' drag rather than mass, and battery_wedge_deg is an almost entirely unexploited gene bound (elite sits at 0.23-0.35 of a 0-15 range) that was never cleanly tested on the exact winning short-arm PA12-CF geometry (every prior wedge test bundled it with a wea

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 17, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 34, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 17, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 38, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 27, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 30, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 8, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.01 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.20 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.60 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.19 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.15 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.52 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pla_plus)": 2}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 16 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 designs. MOST should be PIVOTAL: abandon that shared trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space (a pivot that lands near the elites is usually a wasted round). BUT check first whether the elites are sitting short of a GENE BOUND (including one that was recently widened) rather than short of a hard constraint or a worse-material tradeoff — that is unexploited headroom, not a dead local optimum, and abandoning it wastes a proposal on a hypothesis (a different material, a different shape family) that the run's own history may already show loses on mass. When you find that headroom, spend ONE of your 3 proposals aggressively pushing the CURRENT winning family further into it instead of discarding it. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 5ed32770 — Every stiffening attempt so far leaned on mid-shaft taper plus thickness and the one no-taper test (g55) failed tip deflection because it didn't compensate with real width, so this pivots to a wide, untapered 'ribbon' arm (width pushed to 1.20, waist relieved to 1.05 for near-constant cross-section) carrying stiffness through width instead of thickness, letting arm_thickness drop to 0.0030 while kinvalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
candidate d3f2fb06 — Every prior carbon test just transplanted the pa12_cf floor-thickness recipe onto carbon and lost by a wide margin, never exploiting carbon's actual two advantages -- no printed-material thickness floor and a better stiffness-to-weight ratio -- so this pivots to genuinely thin (0.0026 m) carbon arms near the true minimum, aggressively tapered (waist 0.45) with moderate width (0.95) for root strengflew at 6.051 Wh/km
candidate f8b8a58e — The failed vector was the current top elite's exact geometry with deck_gap cut to 0.027, which put the rotor disk too close to the deck/battery stack; restoring deck_gap to the elite's proven 0.0381 while keeping every other gene identical removes that single constraint violation without touching the validated aerodynamic/mass tradeoffs.flew at 5.973 Wh/km
candidate ff4a0007 — rejected pre-flight (rotor too close to deck/battery) — Every deck_gap test so far pushed toward the 0.045 max and lost narrowly (standoff mass/drag with no clearance benefit), but nobody has tested the low side near the hard 0.023 FC-stack floor, so this clones the top elite exactly and cuts deck_gap to 0.027 to bank the standoff-mass savings that direction was never actually checked for.

16463dd9e9f5

5.972 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.81
crosswind	3.67
gusty_light	3.52
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.58

a6d43b5c7c76

5.972 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.81
crosswind	3.67
gusty_light	3.52
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.58

f8b8a58e8a20

5.973 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.81
crosswind	3.67
gusty_light	3.52
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.58

3f4703e7772e

5.980 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.81
crosswind	3.67
gusty_light	3.53
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.59

9a2c8f15852b

5.982 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.82
crosswind	3.67
gusty_light	3.53
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.59

3c1628023f95

5.987 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.82
crosswind	3.68
gusty_light	3.53
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.60

fe80462d65b1

5.990 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.83
crosswind	3.68
gusty_light	3.53
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.60

e04c703b88da

6.011 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.84
crosswind	3.69
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.61

5f97975f3afe

6.015 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.84
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.61

a2512b2daf2b

6.028 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.86
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.63

d3f2fb06f1ad

6.051 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.20
cold_headwind	3.83
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.57
hot_thin	3.42
storm	4.64

b3a1cb1cb13a

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.85
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.62

e6807e66c54d

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.83
crosswind	3.68
gusty_light	3.54
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.60

e8bf781f6fd4

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (asa)

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	4.11
crosswind	3.88
gusty_light	3.71
hot_thin	3.51
storm	4.85

59cdb425a62a

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.82
crosswind	3.67
gusty_light	3.53
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.59

5ed32770104b

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.87
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.64

generation 55

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 3 design(s) injected

elites carried over unchanged	3
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	2
pivot crosses (far parent)	6
random immigrants	2

mutation σ 0.034 of gene range
pivot σ 0.054 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 55 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.55..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.4..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.0025..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.5..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257, g21 6.257, g22 6.172, g23 6.165, g24 6.144, g25 6.144, g26 6.144, g27 6.144, g28 6.144, g29 6.144, g30 6.144, g31 6.144, g32 6.144, g33 6.144, g34 6.144, g35 6.144, g36 6.113, g37 6.113, g38 6.113, g39 6.051, g40 6.048, g41 6.045, g42 6.038, g43 6.035, g44 6.027, g45 6.023, g46 6.023, g47 6.020, g48 6.019, g49 5.996, g50 5.996, g51 5.996, g52 5.992, g53 5.986, g54 5.980 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 15 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 5.980 Wh/km-agg, frame 65 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7964, "arm_width_scale": 0.7725, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5616, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 35.4692, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.6605, "plate_length_scale": 0.9631, "plate_width_scale": 0.9998, "deck_gap": 0.0389, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.3474, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8139, "material": 0.2768} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.15, "cold_headwind": 3.81, "crosswind": 3.67, "gusty_light": 3.53, "hot_thin": 3.36, "storm": 4.59}
fitness 5.985 Wh/km-agg, frame 65 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8009, "arm_width_scale": 0.7819, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5512, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 37.6657, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.4699, "plate_length_scale": 0.9708, "plate_width_scale": 1.0236, "deck_gap": 0.0387, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.228, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8, "material": 0.2634} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.16, "cold_headwind": 3.82, "crosswind": 3.68, "gusty_light": 3.53, "hot_thin": 3.36, "storm": 4.59}
fitness 5.986 Wh/km-agg, frame 65 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.797, "arm_width_scale": 0.7818, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5527, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 37.3493, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.4773, "plate_length_scale": 0.9695, "plate_width_scale": 1.0041, "deck_gap": 0.0391, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2283, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8011, "material": 0.2611} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.15, "cold_headwind": 3.82, "crosswind": 3.67, "gusty_light": 3.53, "hot_thin": 3.36, "storm": 4.59}
fitness 5.989 Wh/km-agg, frame 66 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7969, "arm_width_scale": 0.7829, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5642, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 35.4326, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.4814, "plate_length_scale": 0.9745, "plate_width_scale": 1.0059, "deck_gap": 0.039, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2283, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8201, "material": 0.2837} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.15, "cold_headwind": 3.82, "crosswind": 3.68, "gusty_light": 3.53, "hot_thin": 3.36, "storm": 4.6}
fitness 5.992 Wh/km-agg, frame 65 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7969, "arm_width_scale": 0.7829, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5642, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 36.3164, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.4814, "plate_length_scale": 0.9745, "plate_width_scale": 1.0059, "deck_gap": 0.039, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2283, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8007, "material": 0.2837} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.16, "cold_headwind": 3.83, "crosswind": 3.68, "gusty_light": 3.54, "hot_thin": 3.37, "storm": 4.6}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g45 `a8588e06` fitness 6.588 Wh/km-agg — was: Every decoupled-sweep pivot so far only opened the rear for prop-wash separation; this instead widens only the front sweep (for better front-rotor separation against gusts/crosswind) while holding rear near stock, pairs it with carbon so plate/arm mass stays low despite the much larger plate growth (1.25/1.18, well beyond the 1.13/1.12 that already failed on tongue bolts at a smaller sweep offset)
- g45 `f7d5fe1f` fitness 6.812 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite is built on floor-mass PA12-CF short arms with zero battery wedge, and storm is stuck at 4.63-4.64 across the entire family; this abandons that trait entirely for carbon (no printed-material thickness floor) at true stock sweep/plate scale with real width/waist/thickness stiffness margin, generous deck_gap for wedge clearance, and a moderate 10deg wedge to finally cut frontal area on a
- g47 `30ebf347` INVALID (arm tip deflection (asa)) — was: Every ASA/PETG attempt used minimal stiffness margin at floor mass and failed on arm-tip deflection before the aero benefit could even be assessed, and every max-wedge test bundled it with long arms or narrow sweep changes; this isolates the full 15deg wedge frontal-area cut on ASA at moderate stock-ish geometry with genuine (not floor) width/thickness margin so the material can actually survive t
- g47 `ba60c54f` fitness 7.180 Wh/km-agg — was: Every long-arm pivot so far paired moderate arm length with either extra stiffness overhead or a wedge confound and lost; this pushes arm length near its max for genuinely low disk loading, opens both sweeps for real rotor separation against storm gusts, and uses carbon (no printed-material thickness floor) with proportionally grown plates so the swept tongue bolts stay seated.
- g48 `79ec1e75` fitness 7.265 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family is floor-mass PA12-CF at short arms with minimal stiffness margin and storm is stuck at 4.62-4.64 across all of them; this abandons that trait for carbon (no printed-material thickness floor) at genuinely long arms with real width/thickness stiffness margin instead of a thickness-floor minimum, and holds sweep close to stock with zero wedge so long-arm disk-loading reductio
- g48 `b799a97f` fitness 6.936 Wh/km-agg — was: Full battery wedge for frontal-area cut has only ever been validly flown on floor-margin printed materials that then failed arm tip deflection, or bundled with long arms/sweep changes; this pairs the full 15 deg wedge with carbon (dodging the printed-material thickness floor) and genuine, not minimal, arm/plate stiffness margin at near-stock sweep so the frame can actually survive long enough to t
- g48 `f947db57` fitness 6.605 Wh/km-agg — was: Same wide-arm/thick-shaft storm-hardened carbon build as the failed attempt, but with reduced sweep offsets (38/45 instead of 41/49) and correspondingly larger plate scales (1.2/1.18 instead of 1.15/1.15) so the swept tongue bolts stay seated on the main plate per the offset-to-plate-growth coupling.
- g49 `83c3edff` fitness 6.402 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family is PA12-CF held right at the printed-material thickness floor with minimal stiffness margin, so mass is already at its practical minimum for that material and storm sits flat at 4.62 regardless of small gene tweaks; this pivots to PET-CF (never validly flown per the failure histogram) at genuine, not floor, stiffness margin with true stock sweep and moderate arm length, iso
- g49 `98d59d77` INVALID (arm tip deflection (asa)) — was: The wide-arm/narrow-waist storm-hardened build failed prescreen on rotor disk overlap because it stacked short arm_length_scale (0.85) with max width (1.15) and an aggressive waist cut (0.45) at narrow sweep, so this keeps the genuinely-wide, real-stiffness ASA arm concept but lengthens the arm to 1.1 for disk clearance, eases width/waist to 1.05/0.6, and holds both sweeps near stock so no plate-s
- g49 `b5073af9` fitness 6.688 Wh/km-agg — was: The rear-sweep-opening pivot failed prescreen because rear sweep 50deg (+14 past the 36deg stock reference) was paired with only 1.16/1.05 plate growth -- well under the ~0.1-per-5deg rule for a 14deg offset -- so this keeps the same storm-gust rear-separation idea but grows plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to 1.28/1.18 to keep the tongue bolts seated, lengthens the arm to 1.05 (rather than sh
- g51 `4981aebc` fitness 6.484 Wh/km-agg — was: Both prescreen failures held arm_length_scale at the floor-mass 0.8 elite value while perturbing width/waist/sweep, so this pivots to genuinely long carbon arms (1.2, well clear of any tip-overlap margin) at true stock-ish sweep and zero wedge to isolate whether lower disk loading alone -- with no printed-material thickness floor -- beats the plateaued short-arm family.
- g51 `8b0b576d` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: Every long-arm pivot so far (g43/g44/g47/g48) switched to carbon to dodge the printed-material thickness floor and still lost by 0.2-1.3 Wh/km-agg, which points at carbon itself -- not the disk-loading lever -- as the losing variable, so this tests genuinely long arms (1.10, well beyond elite's 0.80) for lower induced power on PA12-CF, the material that's actually winning, with a moderate width/th
- g51 `ec33a483` fitness 6.728 Wh/km-agg — was: The failed batch tried sweep/width tweaks at short 0.8 arms and clipped rotor tip clearance, so this instead lengthens the arms to 1.05 for real radial margin while genuinely opening both sweeps for storm-gust rotor separation, growing plate_length/width by ~0.22 per the offset-to-plate-growth rule so the swept tongue bolts stay seated, on never-validly-flown PET-CF at real stiffness margin.
- g52 `1633db9f` fitness 6.942 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior max-wedge attempt on ASA/PETG/PLA+ carried insufficient arm margin and failed on tip deflection before the frontal-area benefit could even be measured; this stacks near-max wedge (14deg) with a deliberately over-built ASA arm (1.1 width, 0.9 waist, 0.008 thickness -- well past anything previously tried) at true stock sweep/plate scale so no other confound can explain a loss if wedge st
- g52 `e44921a6` fitness 6.606 Wh/km-agg — was: PLA+ has only ever been flown once (at insufficient margin, failing arm tip deflection) and never isolated with real stiffness margin, so this pairs it with a thick low-taper arm cross-section (0.9 waist = minimal narrowing, 0.0065 thickness) at moderate length and true stock-ish sweep/plate scale to test whether the material itself -- not just PA12-CF's floor-mass recipe -- can survive and compet
- g53 `5780394b` fitness 6.118 Wh/km-agg — was: Carbon has been tested many times but always bundled with long arms, max wedge, or opened sweep, so it has never been isolated at the exact geometry that is actually winning (short 0.80 arm, narrow 0.78/0.56 width/waist, near-zero wedge, near-stock sweep); this transplants the winning PA12-CF recipe onto cf_plate unchanged except for exploiting carbon's freedom from the 0.8 printed-material thickn
- g53 `8d850bc7` fitness 6.624 Wh/km-agg — was: The one clean PA12-CF long-arm attempt (g51, 1.10 scale) failed on arm tip deflection from insufficient stiffness margin, and every other long-arm test switched to carbon to dodge the thickness floor and lost by 0.5-1.3 Wh/km-agg anyway, so material was never cleared as the losing variable; this pairs a moderate-long arm (1.05, well short of the failed 1.10) with genuinely reinforced width/waist/t
- g53 `e83b6dd5` fitness 6.012 Wh/km-agg — was: The prescreen failure was caused by the reduced arm_length_scale (0.76, below the elite's 0.797) creating rotor tip overlap, not by the deck_gap push -- so this restores the exact elite arm_length_scale while keeping deck_gap at its 0.045 max to still test whether the current winning family has unexploited standoff headroom.
- g54 `345feac1` fitness 6.829 Wh/km-agg — was: The long-arm carbon build for lower disk loading failed because its 7deg rear-sweep offset from stock outgrew the unchanged 1.0 plate scale and dropped the tongue bolts off the plate, so this keeps the same long-arm/opened-sweep concept but grows plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to 1.12/1.10 per the offset-to-plate-growth rule to keep the bolts seated.
- g54 `6cac436f` fitness 6.165 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family is pinned simultaneously against the rotor-overlap arm-length floor, the web-crush plate-scale floor, and the printed-material thickness floor, but arm_width_scale sits at 0.78 while its bound is 0.55 and no earlier proposal isolated a width cut in this exact winning geometry, so this pushes width down to 0.62 with waist relief and added thickness as compensating stiffness margin 

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 17, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 34, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 17, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 38, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 27, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 28, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 8, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.01 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.20 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.60 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.19 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.15 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.52 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pla_plus)": 2}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 15 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 designs. MOST should be PIVOTAL: abandon that shared trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space (a pivot that lands near the elites is usually a wasted round). BUT check first whether the elites are sitting short of a GENE BOUND (including one that was recently widened) rather than short of a hard constraint or a worse-material tradeoff — that is unexploited headroom, not a dead local optimum, and abandoning it wastes a proposal on a hypothesis (a different material, a different shape family) that the run's own history may already show loses on mass. When you find that headroom, spend ONE of your 3 proposals aggressively pushing the CURRENT winning family further into it instead of discarding it. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate b8d03e14 — Storm sits pack-limited and flat (4.59-4.60) across the entire elite family, so remaining gains must come from cutting the other five scenarios' drag rather than mass, and battery_wedge_deg is an almost entirely unexploited gene bound (elite sits at 0.23-0.35 of a 0-15 range) that was never cleanly tested on the exact winning short-arm PA12-CF geometry (every prior wedge test bundled it with a weaflew at 6.024 Wh/km
candidate 34b02229 — Every elite and nearly every prior pivot has stiffened the arm the same way -- moderate thickness plus a strong mid-shaft taper (waist ~0.55) -- and mass has stalled at the 65g floor for that recipe; this abandons the taper strategy entirely for a thin, narrow, untapered shaft (waist pushed to 0.95, near no narrowing) that relies on constant cross-section rather than thickness or taper for stiffneinvalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
candidate 75e5d886 — The one prior width-cut attempt (g54, width 0.62) changed width, waist, and thickness together and lost, so the width-vs-drag trade was never isolated; this holds arm_length, waist, sweep, plate scale, deck_gap, wedge, and material exactly at elite values and changes only width (down to 0.60, well below elite's 0.77) paired with a large thickness increase (0.0062) as pure cross-section stiffness cflew at 6.163 Wh/km

16463dd9e9f5

5.972 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.81
crosswind	3.67
gusty_light	3.52
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.58

3f4703e7772e

5.980 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.81
crosswind	3.67
gusty_light	3.53
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.59

f7fc69302dad

5.985 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.82
crosswind	3.68
gusty_light	3.53
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.59

20502109b058

5.986 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.82
crosswind	3.67
gusty_light	3.53
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.59

39ea5af00974

5.990 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.83
crosswind	3.68
gusty_light	3.53
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.60

fb32f197ac4c

5.997 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.83
crosswind	3.68
gusty_light	3.54
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.60

a93e38ed8349

5.997 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.83
crosswind	3.68
gusty_light	3.54
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.60

cc62aceb9b2a

5.997 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.83
crosswind	3.68
gusty_light	3.54
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.60

e02176a3ea91

5.998 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.83
crosswind	3.68
gusty_light	3.54
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.60

e04c703b88da

6.011 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.84
crosswind	3.69
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.61

b8d03e1498b5

6.024 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.85
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.62

75e5d886f9df

6.163 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.24
cold_headwind	3.94
crosswind	3.80
gusty_light	3.64
hot_thin	3.45
storm	4.73

ae3c1d08a7a0

7.733 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.98
cold_headwind	5.10
crosswind	4.74
gusty_light	4.51
hot_thin	4.25
storm	5.96

6fb2427a7e1a

8.275 wh/km agg

calm_warm	4.28
cold_headwind	5.44
crosswind	5.04
gusty_light	4.82
hot_thin	4.57
storm	6.38

4bded3c61d40

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.82
crosswind	3.67
gusty_light	3.53
hot_thin	3.35
storm	4.59

34b022298ce5

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.13
cold_headwind	3.79
crosswind	3.64
gusty_light	3.50
hot_thin	3.34
storm	4.56

generation 54

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 2 design(s) injected, 3 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	4
claude-designed	2
crossovers (tournament parents)	3
mutants (single parent)	2
pivot crosses (far parent)	5

mutation σ 0.035 of gene range
pivot σ 0.056 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 54 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.55..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.4..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.0025..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.5..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257, g21 6.257, g22 6.172, g23 6.165, g24 6.144, g25 6.144, g26 6.144, g27 6.144, g28 6.144, g29 6.144, g30 6.144, g31 6.144, g32 6.144, g33 6.144, g34 6.144, g35 6.144, g36 6.113, g37 6.113, g38 6.113, g39 6.051, g40 6.048, g41 6.045, g42 6.038, g43 6.035, g44 6.027, g45 6.023, g46 6.023, g47 6.020, g48 6.019, g49 5.996, g50 5.996, g51 5.996, g52 5.992, g53 5.986 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 14 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 5.986 Wh/km-agg, frame 65 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.797, "arm_width_scale": 0.7818, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5527, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 37.3493, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.4773, "plate_length_scale": 0.9695, "plate_width_scale": 1.0041, "deck_gap": 0.0391, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2283, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8011, "material": 0.2611} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.15, "cold_headwind": 3.82, "crosswind": 3.67, "gusty_light": 3.53, "hot_thin": 3.36, "storm": 4.59}
fitness 5.992 Wh/km-agg, frame 65 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7969, "arm_width_scale": 0.7829, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5642, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 36.3164, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.4814, "plate_length_scale": 0.9745, "plate_width_scale": 1.0059, "deck_gap": 0.039, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2283, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8007, "material": 0.2837} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.16, "cold_headwind": 3.83, "crosswind": 3.68, "gusty_light": 3.54, "hot_thin": 3.37, "storm": 4.6}
fitness 5.996 Wh/km-agg, frame 67 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7986, "arm_width_scale": 0.83, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4952, "arm_thickness": 0.0043, "front_sweep_deg": 35.3589, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.5455, "plate_length_scale": 0.9717, "plate_width_scale": 1.0114, "deck_gap": 0.0391, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2279, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8774, "material": 0.2426} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.16, "cold_headwind": 3.82, "crosswind": 3.68, "gusty_light": 3.54, "hot_thin": 3.37, "storm": 4.6}
fitness 5.996 Wh/km-agg, frame 67 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7987, "arm_width_scale": 0.8303, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4954, "arm_thickness": 0.0043, "front_sweep_deg": 35.3501, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.5533, "plate_length_scale": 0.9713, "plate_width_scale": 1.0112, "deck_gap": 0.0391, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2354, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8777, "material": 0.2428} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.16, "cold_headwind": 3.83, "crosswind": 3.68, "gusty_light": 3.54, "hot_thin": 3.37, "storm": 4.6}
fitness 5.997 Wh/km-agg, frame 67 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7986, "arm_width_scale": 0.834, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4908, "arm_thickness": 0.0043, "front_sweep_deg": 35.7763, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.222, "plate_length_scale": 0.9622, "plate_width_scale": 1.0119, "deck_gap": 0.0393, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.1808, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.872, "material": 0.247} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.16, "cold_headwind": 3.83, "crosswind": 3.68, "gusty_light": 3.54, "hot_thin": 3.37, "storm": 4.6}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g44 `72423ad9` fitness 6.613 Wh/km-agg — was: Max battery wedge has only ever been tested with short printed-material arms or bundled with sweep changes that broke tongue geometry; this instead pairs carbon (dodging the printed-material floor to keep mass low) with a genuinely narrow arm cross-section (0.6 width, real drag cut) and a longer arm (1.1) at the untouched stock sweep, stacking frontal-area reduction from both the wedge and the arm
- g45 `052b89f9` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: PETG has never been validly flown (every prior attempt used a different tough material or insufficient stiffness margin and hit arm tip deflection), and max battery wedge has never been paired with a genuinely reinforced arm cross-section at safe stock geometry; this isolates full 15deg wedge frontal-area cut with PETG at true stock sweep/plate scale, thick arm shafts and above-floor plate thickne
- g45 `a8588e06` fitness 6.588 Wh/km-agg — was: Every decoupled-sweep pivot so far only opened the rear for prop-wash separation; this instead widens only the front sweep (for better front-rotor separation against gusts/crosswind) while holding rear near stock, pairs it with carbon so plate/arm mass stays low despite the much larger plate growth (1.25/1.18, well beyond the 1.13/1.12 that already failed on tongue bolts at a smaller sweep offset)
- g45 `f7d5fe1f` fitness 6.812 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite is built on floor-mass PA12-CF short arms with zero battery wedge, and storm is stuck at 4.63-4.64 across the entire family; this abandons that trait entirely for carbon (no printed-material thickness floor) at true stock sweep/plate scale with real width/waist/thickness stiffness margin, generous deck_gap for wedge clearance, and a moderate 10deg wedge to finally cut frontal area on a
- g47 `30ebf347` INVALID (arm tip deflection (asa)) — was: Every ASA/PETG attempt used minimal stiffness margin at floor mass and failed on arm-tip deflection before the aero benefit could even be assessed, and every max-wedge test bundled it with long arms or narrow sweep changes; this isolates the full 15deg wedge frontal-area cut on ASA at moderate stock-ish geometry with genuine (not floor) width/thickness margin so the material can actually survive t
- g47 `ba60c54f` fitness 7.180 Wh/km-agg — was: Every long-arm pivot so far paired moderate arm length with either extra stiffness overhead or a wedge confound and lost; this pushes arm length near its max for genuinely low disk loading, opens both sweeps for real rotor separation against storm gusts, and uses carbon (no printed-material thickness floor) with proportionally grown plates so the swept tongue bolts stay seated.
- g48 `79ec1e75` fitness 7.265 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family is floor-mass PA12-CF at short arms with minimal stiffness margin and storm is stuck at 4.62-4.64 across all of them; this abandons that trait for carbon (no printed-material thickness floor) at genuinely long arms with real width/thickness stiffness margin instead of a thickness-floor minimum, and holds sweep close to stock with zero wedge so long-arm disk-loading reductio
- g48 `b799a97f` fitness 6.936 Wh/km-agg — was: Full battery wedge for frontal-area cut has only ever been validly flown on floor-margin printed materials that then failed arm tip deflection, or bundled with long arms/sweep changes; this pairs the full 15 deg wedge with carbon (dodging the printed-material thickness floor) and genuine, not minimal, arm/plate stiffness margin at near-stock sweep so the frame can actually survive long enough to t
- g48 `f947db57` fitness 6.605 Wh/km-agg — was: Same wide-arm/thick-shaft storm-hardened carbon build as the failed attempt, but with reduced sweep offsets (38/45 instead of 41/49) and correspondingly larger plate scales (1.2/1.18 instead of 1.15/1.15) so the swept tongue bolts stay seated on the main plate per the offset-to-plate-growth coupling.
- g49 `83c3edff` fitness 6.402 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family is PA12-CF held right at the printed-material thickness floor with minimal stiffness margin, so mass is already at its practical minimum for that material and storm sits flat at 4.62 regardless of small gene tweaks; this pivots to PET-CF (never validly flown per the failure histogram) at genuine, not floor, stiffness margin with true stock sweep and moderate arm length, iso
- g49 `98d59d77` INVALID (arm tip deflection (asa)) — was: The wide-arm/narrow-waist storm-hardened build failed prescreen on rotor disk overlap because it stacked short arm_length_scale (0.85) with max width (1.15) and an aggressive waist cut (0.45) at narrow sweep, so this keeps the genuinely-wide, real-stiffness ASA arm concept but lengthens the arm to 1.1 for disk clearance, eases width/waist to 1.05/0.6, and holds both sweeps near stock so no plate-s
- g49 `b5073af9` fitness 6.688 Wh/km-agg — was: The rear-sweep-opening pivot failed prescreen because rear sweep 50deg (+14 past the 36deg stock reference) was paired with only 1.16/1.05 plate growth -- well under the ~0.1-per-5deg rule for a 14deg offset -- so this keeps the same storm-gust rear-separation idea but grows plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to 1.28/1.18 to keep the tongue bolts seated, lengthens the arm to 1.05 (rather than sh
- g51 `4981aebc` fitness 6.484 Wh/km-agg — was: Both prescreen failures held arm_length_scale at the floor-mass 0.8 elite value while perturbing width/waist/sweep, so this pivots to genuinely long carbon arms (1.2, well clear of any tip-overlap margin) at true stock-ish sweep and zero wedge to isolate whether lower disk loading alone -- with no printed-material thickness floor -- beats the plateaued short-arm family.
- g51 `8b0b576d` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: Every long-arm pivot so far (g43/g44/g47/g48) switched to carbon to dodge the printed-material thickness floor and still lost by 0.2-1.3 Wh/km-agg, which points at carbon itself -- not the disk-loading lever -- as the losing variable, so this tests genuinely long arms (1.10, well beyond elite's 0.80) for lower induced power on PA12-CF, the material that's actually winning, with a moderate width/th
- g51 `ec33a483` fitness 6.728 Wh/km-agg — was: The failed batch tried sweep/width tweaks at short 0.8 arms and clipped rotor tip clearance, so this instead lengthens the arms to 1.05 for real radial margin while genuinely opening both sweeps for storm-gust rotor separation, growing plate_length/width by ~0.22 per the offset-to-plate-growth rule so the swept tongue bolts stay seated, on never-validly-flown PET-CF at real stiffness margin.
- g52 `1633db9f` fitness 6.942 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior max-wedge attempt on ASA/PETG/PLA+ carried insufficient arm margin and failed on tip deflection before the frontal-area benefit could even be measured; this stacks near-max wedge (14deg) with a deliberately over-built ASA arm (1.1 width, 0.9 waist, 0.008 thickness -- well past anything previously tried) at true stock sweep/plate scale so no other confound can explain a loss if wedge st
- g52 `e44921a6` fitness 6.606 Wh/km-agg — was: PLA+ has only ever been flown once (at insufficient margin, failing arm tip deflection) and never isolated with real stiffness margin, so this pairs it with a thick low-taper arm cross-section (0.9 waist = minimal narrowing, 0.0065 thickness) at moderate length and true stock-ish sweep/plate scale to test whether the material itself -- not just PA12-CF's floor-mass recipe -- can survive and compet
- g53 `5780394b` fitness 6.118 Wh/km-agg — was: Carbon has been tested many times but always bundled with long arms, max wedge, or opened sweep, so it has never been isolated at the exact geometry that is actually winning (short 0.80 arm, narrow 0.78/0.56 width/waist, near-zero wedge, near-stock sweep); this transplants the winning PA12-CF recipe onto cf_plate unchanged except for exploiting carbon's freedom from the 0.8 printed-material thickn
- g53 `8d850bc7` fitness 6.624 Wh/km-agg — was: The one clean PA12-CF long-arm attempt (g51, 1.10 scale) failed on arm tip deflection from insufficient stiffness margin, and every other long-arm test switched to carbon to dodge the thickness floor and lost by 0.5-1.3 Wh/km-agg anyway, so material was never cleared as the losing variable; this pairs a moderate-long arm (1.05, well short of the failed 1.10) with genuinely reinforced width/waist/t
- g53 `e83b6dd5` fitness 6.012 Wh/km-agg — was: The prescreen failure was caused by the reduced arm_length_scale (0.76, below the elite's 0.797) creating rotor tip overlap, not by the deck_gap push -- so this restores the exact elite arm_length_scale while keeping deck_gap at its 0.045 max to still test whether the current winning family has unexploited standoff headroom.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 17, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 34, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 17, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 38, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 27, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 26, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 8, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.01 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.20 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.60 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.19 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.15 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.52 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pla_plus)": 2}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 14 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 designs. MOST should be PIVOTAL: abandon that shared trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space (a pivot that lands near the elites is usually a wasted round). BUT check first whether the elites are sitting short of a GENE BOUND (including one that was recently widened) rather than short of a hard constraint or a worse-material tradeoff — that is unexploited headroom, not a dead local optimum, and abandoning it wastes a proposal on a hypothesis (a different material, a different shape family) that the run's own history may already show loses on mass. When you find that headroom, spend ONE of your 3 proposals aggressively pushing the CURRENT winning family further into it instead of discarding it. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 6cac436f — The elite family is pinned simultaneously against the rotor-overlap arm-length floor, the web-crush plate-scale floor, and the printed-material thickness floor, but arm_width_scale sits at 0.78 while its bound is 0.55 and no earlier proposal isolated a width cut in this exact winning geometry, so this pushes width down to 0.62 with waist relief and added thickness as compensating stiffness margin flew at 6.165 Wh/km
candidate 345feac1 — The long-arm carbon build for lower disk loading failed because its 7deg rear-sweep offset from stock outgrew the unchanged 1.0 plate scale and dropped the tongue bolts off the plate, so this keeps the same long-arm/opened-sweep concept but grows plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to 1.12/1.10 per the offset-to-plate-growth rule to keep the bolts seated.flew at 6.829 Wh/km
candidate 91aca1ca — rejected pre-flight (plate web too thin (plate_main 1.07 mm, stock 1.90 mm)) — Every sweep experiment on record has only widened the arms outward from stock (31.4/36.0) and lost, but nobody has tried narrowing below stock toward the true minimums (30/34), which per the known coupling is only dangerous with wide arms -- so this pairs near-minimum sweeps with the winning family's narrow arm cross-section (avoiding the tongue-collision failure mode) and lets plate scales shrink
candidate 4e819461 — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — Every prior long-arm pivot for lower disk loading paired the extra length with either a wide/thick-margin cross-section (adding mass back) or insufficient stiffness on PA12-CF and failed deflection, so this tests a genuinely narrow arm cross-section at long length (1.15) on carbon plate -- which has no thickness floor and better stiffness-to-mass, letting the reinforcement needed for tip deflectio
candidate 5c023a1f — rejected pre-flight (arm root tongues collide on the main plate) — The short/narrow-arm, near-stock-sweep recipe crushed the main-plate web at exactly the 0.95 plate-scale boundary even with the printed-material thickness floor, so this keeps the identical short-arm/narrow-width/small-wedge PA12-CF concept but raises plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to 1.0 and plate_thickness_scale to 0.85 for real web margin.

3f4703e7772e

5.980 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.81
crosswind	3.67
gusty_light	3.53
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.59

f7fc69302dad

5.985 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.82
crosswind	3.68
gusty_light	3.53
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.59

6c89b6db1b4e

5.986 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.82
crosswind	3.67
gusty_light	3.53
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.59

e6483b058331

5.989 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.82
crosswind	3.68
gusty_light	3.53
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.60

7cb5e0fb0f54

5.992 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.83
crosswind	3.68
gusty_light	3.54
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.60

1729223b862a

5.997 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.82
crosswind	3.69
gusty_light	3.54
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.60

a93e38ed8349

5.997 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.83
crosswind	3.68
gusty_light	3.54
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.60

fdf4ad74657b

5.998 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.83
crosswind	3.68
gusty_light	3.54
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.60

83792dd52e39

6.008 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.83
crosswind	3.69
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.61

9f5f6a4a59be

6.010 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.84
crosswind	3.69
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.61

c51423b2da03

6.034 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.86
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.63

e089a121b62d

6.048 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.86
crosswind	3.72
gusty_light	3.57
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.64

6cac436f3769

6.165 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.24
cold_headwind	3.95
crosswind	3.79
gusty_light	3.63
hot_thin	3.46
storm	4.73

345feac125e3

6.829 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.56
cold_headwind	4.41
crosswind	4.21
gusty_light	4.01
hot_thin	3.80
storm	5.25

223e13e55c6d

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.85
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.62

f8f4d44c2784

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.81
crosswind	3.67
gusty_light	3.52
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.58

generation 53

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 3 design(s) injected, 1 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	4
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	4
pivot crosses (far parent)	5

mutation σ 0.036 of gene range
pivot σ 0.057 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 53 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.55..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.4..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.0025..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.5..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257, g21 6.257, g22 6.172, g23 6.165, g24 6.144, g25 6.144, g26 6.144, g27 6.144, g28 6.144, g29 6.144, g30 6.144, g31 6.144, g32 6.144, g33 6.144, g34 6.144, g35 6.144, g36 6.113, g37 6.113, g38 6.113, g39 6.051, g40 6.048, g41 6.045, g42 6.038, g43 6.035, g44 6.027, g45 6.023, g46 6.023, g47 6.020, g48 6.019, g49 5.996, g50 5.996, g51 5.996, g52 5.992 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 13 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 5.992 Wh/km-agg, frame 65 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7969, "arm_width_scale": 0.7829, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5642, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 36.3164, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.4814, "plate_length_scale": 0.9745, "plate_width_scale": 1.0059, "deck_gap": 0.039, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2283, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8007, "material": 0.2837} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.16, "cold_headwind": 3.83, "crosswind": 3.68, "gusty_light": 3.54, "hot_thin": 3.37, "storm": 4.6}
fitness 5.996 Wh/km-agg, frame 67 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7986, "arm_width_scale": 0.83, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4952, "arm_thickness": 0.0043, "front_sweep_deg": 35.3589, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.5455, "plate_length_scale": 0.9717, "plate_width_scale": 1.0114, "deck_gap": 0.0391, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2279, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8774, "material": 0.2426} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.16, "cold_headwind": 3.82, "crosswind": 3.68, "gusty_light": 3.54, "hot_thin": 3.37, "storm": 4.6}
fitness 5.997 Wh/km-agg, frame 67 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7982, "arm_width_scale": 0.8303, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4958, "arm_thickness": 0.0043, "front_sweep_deg": 35.3591, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.5112, "plate_length_scale": 0.9716, "plate_width_scale": 1.0121, "deck_gap": 0.0391, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2313, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8781, "material": 0.2433} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.16, "cold_headwind": 3.83, "crosswind": 3.68, "gusty_light": 3.54, "hot_thin": 3.37, "storm": 4.6}
fitness 5.998 Wh/km-agg, frame 67 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7982, "arm_width_scale": 0.8303, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4967, "arm_thickness": 0.0043, "front_sweep_deg": 35.3592, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.5112, "plate_length_scale": 0.9716, "plate_width_scale": 1.0121, "deck_gap": 0.0391, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2314, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8774, "material": 0.2431} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.16, "cold_headwind": 3.83, "crosswind": 3.68, "gusty_light": 3.54, "hot_thin": 3.37, "storm": 4.6}
fitness 6.001 Wh/km-agg, frame 66 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7961, "arm_width_scale": 0.8035, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5653, "arm_thickness": 0.0043, "front_sweep_deg": 36.3522, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.4874, "plate_length_scale": 0.9732, "plate_width_scale": 1.0085, "deck_gap": 0.0398, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2297, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8, "material": 0.2609} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.16, "cold_headwind": 3.83, "crosswind": 3.69, "gusty_light": 3.54, "hot_thin": 3.37, "storm": 4.6}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g43 `b060e8d5` INVALID (arm resonance with rotor 1P) — was: Every past stiffness pivot bundled width AND thickness increases together, conflating frontal-drag-adding width with drag-neutral through-thickness bending stiffness, so this isolates a thin-narrow-but-maximally-thick carbon arm cross-section (min width, low waist, max thickness) to test whether out-of-plane stiffness alone -- without added frontal profile -- cracks the storm plateau.
- g44 `044e1644` fitness 6.671 Wh/km-agg — was: The plateau is built entirely on floor-mass PA12-CF short arms (0.79-0.81) with minimal stiffness margin -- storm is stuck at 4.63-4.64 across every elite variant, so this pivots to carbon (no printed-material thickness floor) with genuinely long arms (1.22, lower disk loading and more prop-wash separation) plus real width/waist/thickness stiffness margin and a moderate 8deg wedge, at the proven-s
- g44 `5bc6b43e` fitness 6.867 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past stiffness pivot either isolated one axis (thickness alone failed on arm resonance) or bundled stiffness with a mass-cutting confound and lost; this abandons mass optimization entirely for a storm-hardened build -- wide arms (1.1), minimal waist narrowing (1.1), thick shafts (0.0075) and thick ASA plates (1.1x) at stock geometry and zero wedge -- to test whether committing real structura
- g44 `72423ad9` fitness 6.613 Wh/km-agg — was: Max battery wedge has only ever been tested with short printed-material arms or bundled with sweep changes that broke tongue geometry; this instead pairs carbon (dodging the printed-material floor to keep mass low) with a genuinely narrow arm cross-section (0.6 width, real drag cut) and a longer arm (1.1) at the untouched stock sweep, stacking frontal-area reduction from both the wedge and the arm
- g45 `052b89f9` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: PETG has never been validly flown (every prior attempt used a different tough material or insufficient stiffness margin and hit arm tip deflection), and max battery wedge has never been paired with a genuinely reinforced arm cross-section at safe stock geometry; this isolates full 15deg wedge frontal-area cut with PETG at true stock sweep/plate scale, thick arm shafts and above-floor plate thickne
- g45 `a8588e06` fitness 6.588 Wh/km-agg — was: Every decoupled-sweep pivot so far only opened the rear for prop-wash separation; this instead widens only the front sweep (for better front-rotor separation against gusts/crosswind) while holding rear near stock, pairs it with carbon so plate/arm mass stays low despite the much larger plate growth (1.25/1.18, well beyond the 1.13/1.12 that already failed on tongue bolts at a smaller sweep offset)
- g45 `f7d5fe1f` fitness 6.812 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite is built on floor-mass PA12-CF short arms with zero battery wedge, and storm is stuck at 4.63-4.64 across the entire family; this abandons that trait entirely for carbon (no printed-material thickness floor) at true stock sweep/plate scale with real width/waist/thickness stiffness margin, generous deck_gap for wedge clearance, and a moderate 10deg wedge to finally cut frontal area on a
- g47 `30ebf347` INVALID (arm tip deflection (asa)) — was: Every ASA/PETG attempt used minimal stiffness margin at floor mass and failed on arm-tip deflection before the aero benefit could even be assessed, and every max-wedge test bundled it with long arms or narrow sweep changes; this isolates the full 15deg wedge frontal-area cut on ASA at moderate stock-ish geometry with genuine (not floor) width/thickness margin so the material can actually survive t
- g47 `ba60c54f` fitness 7.180 Wh/km-agg — was: Every long-arm pivot so far paired moderate arm length with either extra stiffness overhead or a wedge confound and lost; this pushes arm length near its max for genuinely low disk loading, opens both sweeps for real rotor separation against storm gusts, and uses carbon (no printed-material thickness floor) with proportionally grown plates so the swept tongue bolts stay seated.
- g48 `79ec1e75` fitness 7.265 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family is floor-mass PA12-CF at short arms with minimal stiffness margin and storm is stuck at 4.62-4.64 across all of them; this abandons that trait for carbon (no printed-material thickness floor) at genuinely long arms with real width/thickness stiffness margin instead of a thickness-floor minimum, and holds sweep close to stock with zero wedge so long-arm disk-loading reductio
- g48 `b799a97f` fitness 6.936 Wh/km-agg — was: Full battery wedge for frontal-area cut has only ever been validly flown on floor-margin printed materials that then failed arm tip deflection, or bundled with long arms/sweep changes; this pairs the full 15 deg wedge with carbon (dodging the printed-material thickness floor) and genuine, not minimal, arm/plate stiffness margin at near-stock sweep so the frame can actually survive long enough to t
- g48 `f947db57` fitness 6.605 Wh/km-agg — was: Same wide-arm/thick-shaft storm-hardened carbon build as the failed attempt, but with reduced sweep offsets (38/45 instead of 41/49) and correspondingly larger plate scales (1.2/1.18 instead of 1.15/1.15) so the swept tongue bolts stay seated on the main plate per the offset-to-plate-growth coupling.
- g49 `83c3edff` fitness 6.402 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family is PA12-CF held right at the printed-material thickness floor with minimal stiffness margin, so mass is already at its practical minimum for that material and storm sits flat at 4.62 regardless of small gene tweaks; this pivots to PET-CF (never validly flown per the failure histogram) at genuine, not floor, stiffness margin with true stock sweep and moderate arm length, iso
- g49 `98d59d77` INVALID (arm tip deflection (asa)) — was: The wide-arm/narrow-waist storm-hardened build failed prescreen on rotor disk overlap because it stacked short arm_length_scale (0.85) with max width (1.15) and an aggressive waist cut (0.45) at narrow sweep, so this keeps the genuinely-wide, real-stiffness ASA arm concept but lengthens the arm to 1.1 for disk clearance, eases width/waist to 1.05/0.6, and holds both sweeps near stock so no plate-s
- g49 `b5073af9` fitness 6.688 Wh/km-agg — was: The rear-sweep-opening pivot failed prescreen because rear sweep 50deg (+14 past the 36deg stock reference) was paired with only 1.16/1.05 plate growth -- well under the ~0.1-per-5deg rule for a 14deg offset -- so this keeps the same storm-gust rear-separation idea but grows plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to 1.28/1.18 to keep the tongue bolts seated, lengthens the arm to 1.05 (rather than sh
- g51 `4981aebc` fitness 6.484 Wh/km-agg — was: Both prescreen failures held arm_length_scale at the floor-mass 0.8 elite value while perturbing width/waist/sweep, so this pivots to genuinely long carbon arms (1.2, well clear of any tip-overlap margin) at true stock-ish sweep and zero wedge to isolate whether lower disk loading alone -- with no printed-material thickness floor -- beats the plateaued short-arm family.
- g51 `8b0b576d` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: Every long-arm pivot so far (g43/g44/g47/g48) switched to carbon to dodge the printed-material thickness floor and still lost by 0.2-1.3 Wh/km-agg, which points at carbon itself -- not the disk-loading lever -- as the losing variable, so this tests genuinely long arms (1.10, well beyond elite's 0.80) for lower induced power on PA12-CF, the material that's actually winning, with a moderate width/th
- g51 `ec33a483` fitness 6.728 Wh/km-agg — was: The failed batch tried sweep/width tweaks at short 0.8 arms and clipped rotor tip clearance, so this instead lengthens the arms to 1.05 for real radial margin while genuinely opening both sweeps for storm-gust rotor separation, growing plate_length/width by ~0.22 per the offset-to-plate-growth rule so the swept tongue bolts stay seated, on never-validly-flown PET-CF at real stiffness margin.
- g52 `1633db9f` fitness 6.942 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior max-wedge attempt on ASA/PETG/PLA+ carried insufficient arm margin and failed on tip deflection before the frontal-area benefit could even be measured; this stacks near-max wedge (14deg) with a deliberately over-built ASA arm (1.1 width, 0.9 waist, 0.008 thickness -- well past anything previously tried) at true stock sweep/plate scale so no other confound can explain a loss if wedge st
- g52 `e44921a6` fitness 6.606 Wh/km-agg — was: PLA+ has only ever been flown once (at insufficient margin, failing arm tip deflection) and never isolated with real stiffness margin, so this pairs it with a thick low-taper arm cross-section (0.9 waist = minimal narrowing, 0.0065 thickness) at moderate length and true stock-ish sweep/plate scale to test whether the material itself -- not just PA12-CF's floor-mass recipe -- can survive and compet

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 17, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 34, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 17, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 38, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 27, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 26, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 8, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.01 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.20 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.60 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.19 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.15 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.52 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pla_plus)": 2}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 13 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 designs. MOST should be PIVOTAL: abandon that shared trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space (a pivot that lands near the elites is usually a wasted round). BUT check first whether the elites are sitting short of a GENE BOUND (including one that was recently widened) rather than short of a hard constraint or a worse-material tradeoff — that is unexploited headroom, not a dead local optimum, and abandoning it wastes a proposal on a hypothesis (a different material, a different shape family) that the run's own history may already show loses on mass. When you find that headroom, spend ONE of your 3 proposals aggressively pushing the CURRENT winning family further into it instead of discarding it. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 5780394b — Carbon has been tested many times but always bundled with long arms, max wedge, or opened sweep, so it has never been isolated at the exact geometry that is actually winning (short 0.80 arm, narrow 0.78/0.56 width/waist, near-zero wedge, near-stock sweep); this transplants the winning PA12-CF recipe onto cf_plate unchanged except for exploiting carbon's freedom from the 0.8 printed-material thicknflew at 6.118 Wh/km
candidate 8d850bc7 — The one clean PA12-CF long-arm attempt (g51, 1.10 scale) failed on arm tip deflection from insufficient stiffness margin, and every other long-arm test switched to carbon to dodge the thickness floor and lost by 0.5-1.3 Wh/km-agg anyway, so material was never cleared as the losing variable; this pairs a moderate-long arm (1.05, well short of the failed 1.10) with genuinely reinforced width/waist/tflew at 6.624 Wh/km
candidate e83b6dd5 — The prescreen failure was caused by the reduced arm_length_scale (0.76, below the elite's 0.797) creating rotor tip overlap, not by the deck_gap push -- so this restores the exact elite arm_length_scale while keeping deck_gap at its 0.045 max to still test whether the current winning family has unexploited standoff headroom.flew at 6.012 Wh/km
candidate bf9fe0f6 — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Across the top 5 elites deck_gap has crept up from 0.039 to 0.0398 (within 0.005 of the 0.045 max) while arm_length_scale sits flat at 0.797-0.799, only 0.047 above the 0.75 floor -- both untested at their true extreme within the actual winning PA12-CF recipe (every prior arm-length push toward either bound bundled in a material or wedge change that independently lost), so this holds the elite's w

6c89b6db1b4e

5.986 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.82
crosswind	3.67
gusty_light	3.53
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.59

7cb5e0fb0f54

5.992 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.83
crosswind	3.68
gusty_light	3.54
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.60

ecf9c2cbfabb

5.996 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.82
crosswind	3.68
gusty_light	3.54
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.60

f7e998f4f133

5.996 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.83
crosswind	3.68
gusty_light	3.54
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.60

d131a061a31c

5.997 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.83
crosswind	3.68
gusty_light	3.54
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.60

1729223b862a

5.997 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.82
crosswind	3.69
gusty_light	3.54
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.60

fdf4ad74657b

5.998 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.83
crosswind	3.68
gusty_light	3.54
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.60

e83b6dd5a943

6.012 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.84
crosswind	3.69
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.61

222fa0a5784b

6.014 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.84
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.61

b964270b85eb

6.018 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.84
crosswind	3.69
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.62

fd1ecec6c6e0

6.037 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.86
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.63

d79b72915d80

6.053 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.87
crosswind	3.72
gusty_light	3.57
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.65

a817f1dbe3db

6.054 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.87
crosswind	3.72
gusty_light	3.57
hot_thin	3.40
storm	4.65

5780394b9274

6.118 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.23
cold_headwind	3.89
crosswind	3.75
gusty_light	3.61
hot_thin	3.44
storm	4.69

609eb7d22ee4

6.147 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.23
cold_headwind	3.94
crosswind	3.78
gusty_light	3.62
hot_thin	3.44
storm	4.72

8d850bc7ddca

6.624 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	4.30
crosswind	4.08
gusty_light	3.89
hot_thin	3.68
storm	5.09

generation 52

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 2 design(s) injected, 2 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	3
claude-designed	2
crossovers (tournament parents)	3
pivot crosses (far parent)	6
random immigrants	2

mutation σ 0.037 of gene range
pivot σ 0.059 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 52 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.55..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.4..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.0025..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.5..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257, g21 6.257, g22 6.172, g23 6.165, g24 6.144, g25 6.144, g26 6.144, g27 6.144, g28 6.144, g29 6.144, g30 6.144, g31 6.144, g32 6.144, g33 6.144, g34 6.144, g35 6.144, g36 6.113, g37 6.113, g38 6.113, g39 6.051, g40 6.048, g41 6.045, g42 6.038, g43 6.035, g44 6.027, g45 6.023, g46 6.023, g47 6.020, g48 6.019, g49 5.996, g50 5.996, g51 5.996 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 12 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 5.996 Wh/km-agg, frame 67 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7986, "arm_width_scale": 0.83, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4952, "arm_thickness": 0.0043, "front_sweep_deg": 35.3589, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.5455, "plate_length_scale": 0.9717, "plate_width_scale": 1.0114, "deck_gap": 0.0391, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2279, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8774, "material": 0.2426} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.16, "cold_headwind": 3.82, "crosswind": 3.68, "gusty_light": 3.54, "hot_thin": 3.37, "storm": 4.6}
fitness 5.998 Wh/km-agg, frame 67 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7982, "arm_width_scale": 0.8303, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4967, "arm_thickness": 0.0043, "front_sweep_deg": 35.3592, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.5112, "plate_length_scale": 0.9716, "plate_width_scale": 1.0121, "deck_gap": 0.0391, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2314, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8774, "material": 0.2431} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.16, "cold_headwind": 3.83, "crosswind": 3.68, "gusty_light": 3.54, "hot_thin": 3.37, "storm": 4.6}
fitness 6.006 Wh/km-agg, frame 66 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7963, "arm_width_scale": 0.811, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5643, "arm_thickness": 0.0043, "front_sweep_deg": 36.3361, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.4404, "plate_length_scale": 0.9743, "plate_width_scale": 1.0068, "deck_gap": 0.039, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2322, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8002, "material": 0.285} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.16, "cold_headwind": 3.83, "crosswind": 3.69, "gusty_light": 3.54, "hot_thin": 3.37, "storm": 4.61}
fitness 6.009 Wh/km-agg, frame 66 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7969, "arm_width_scale": 0.8118, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5642, "arm_thickness": 0.0043, "front_sweep_deg": 36.3164, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.4408, "plate_length_scale": 0.9745, "plate_width_scale": 1.0062, "deck_gap": 0.039, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2261, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8011, "material": 0.2837} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.16, "cold_headwind": 3.84, "crosswind": 3.69, "gusty_light": 3.54, "hot_thin": 3.37, "storm": 4.61}
fitness 6.013 Wh/km-agg, frame 67 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7831, "arm_width_scale": 0.8238, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5546, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 36.577, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.9588, "plate_length_scale": 1.0318, "plate_width_scale": 1.0206, "deck_gap": 0.0385, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0766, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8303, "material": 0.2594} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.16, "cold_headwind": 3.84, "crosswind": 3.69, "gusty_light": 3.55, "hot_thin": 3.37, "storm": 4.62}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g43 `2870779c` fitness 6.243 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior long-arm pivot paired the lower disk loading with either a printed-material thickness floor or extra width/waist stiffness margin and lost to the combined mass tax, but carbon's superior stiffness-per-mass has never been paired with genuinely long arms and truly minimal thickness/plate mass, testing whether it lets long arms finally pay off.
- g43 `52d0f02a` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Every past max-wedge test held sweep near stock and every open-rear-sweep test used minimal-margin materials, so this stacks max battery wedge (frontal-area cut) with a genuinely opened rear sweep (prop-wash separation for storm gusts) and tough ASA with real plate stiffness, none of which has been combined before.
- g43 `b060e8d5` INVALID (arm resonance with rotor 1P) — was: Every past stiffness pivot bundled width AND thickness increases together, conflating frontal-drag-adding width with drag-neutral through-thickness bending stiffness, so this isolates a thin-narrow-but-maximally-thick carbon arm cross-section (min width, low waist, max thickness) to test whether out-of-plane stiffness alone -- without added frontal profile -- cracks the storm plateau.
- g44 `044e1644` fitness 6.671 Wh/km-agg — was: The plateau is built entirely on floor-mass PA12-CF short arms (0.79-0.81) with minimal stiffness margin -- storm is stuck at 4.63-4.64 across every elite variant, so this pivots to carbon (no printed-material thickness floor) with genuinely long arms (1.22, lower disk loading and more prop-wash separation) plus real width/waist/thickness stiffness margin and a moderate 8deg wedge, at the proven-s
- g44 `5bc6b43e` fitness 6.867 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past stiffness pivot either isolated one axis (thickness alone failed on arm resonance) or bundled stiffness with a mass-cutting confound and lost; this abandons mass optimization entirely for a storm-hardened build -- wide arms (1.1), minimal waist narrowing (1.1), thick shafts (0.0075) and thick ASA plates (1.1x) at stock geometry and zero wedge -- to test whether committing real structura
- g44 `72423ad9` fitness 6.613 Wh/km-agg — was: Max battery wedge has only ever been tested with short printed-material arms or bundled with sweep changes that broke tongue geometry; this instead pairs carbon (dodging the printed-material floor to keep mass low) with a genuinely narrow arm cross-section (0.6 width, real drag cut) and a longer arm (1.1) at the untouched stock sweep, stacking frontal-area reduction from both the wedge and the arm
- g45 `052b89f9` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: PETG has never been validly flown (every prior attempt used a different tough material or insufficient stiffness margin and hit arm tip deflection), and max battery wedge has never been paired with a genuinely reinforced arm cross-section at safe stock geometry; this isolates full 15deg wedge frontal-area cut with PETG at true stock sweep/plate scale, thick arm shafts and above-floor plate thickne
- g45 `a8588e06` fitness 6.588 Wh/km-agg — was: Every decoupled-sweep pivot so far only opened the rear for prop-wash separation; this instead widens only the front sweep (for better front-rotor separation against gusts/crosswind) while holding rear near stock, pairs it with carbon so plate/arm mass stays low despite the much larger plate growth (1.25/1.18, well beyond the 1.13/1.12 that already failed on tongue bolts at a smaller sweep offset)
- g45 `f7d5fe1f` fitness 6.812 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite is built on floor-mass PA12-CF short arms with zero battery wedge, and storm is stuck at 4.63-4.64 across the entire family; this abandons that trait entirely for carbon (no printed-material thickness floor) at true stock sweep/plate scale with real width/waist/thickness stiffness margin, generous deck_gap for wedge clearance, and a moderate 10deg wedge to finally cut frontal area on a
- g47 `30ebf347` INVALID (arm tip deflection (asa)) — was: Every ASA/PETG attempt used minimal stiffness margin at floor mass and failed on arm-tip deflection before the aero benefit could even be assessed, and every max-wedge test bundled it with long arms or narrow sweep changes; this isolates the full 15deg wedge frontal-area cut on ASA at moderate stock-ish geometry with genuine (not floor) width/thickness margin so the material can actually survive t
- g47 `ba60c54f` fitness 7.180 Wh/km-agg — was: Every long-arm pivot so far paired moderate arm length with either extra stiffness overhead or a wedge confound and lost; this pushes arm length near its max for genuinely low disk loading, opens both sweeps for real rotor separation against storm gusts, and uses carbon (no printed-material thickness floor) with proportionally grown plates so the swept tongue bolts stay seated.
- g48 `79ec1e75` fitness 7.265 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family is floor-mass PA12-CF at short arms with minimal stiffness margin and storm is stuck at 4.62-4.64 across all of them; this abandons that trait for carbon (no printed-material thickness floor) at genuinely long arms with real width/thickness stiffness margin instead of a thickness-floor minimum, and holds sweep close to stock with zero wedge so long-arm disk-loading reductio
- g48 `b799a97f` fitness 6.936 Wh/km-agg — was: Full battery wedge for frontal-area cut has only ever been validly flown on floor-margin printed materials that then failed arm tip deflection, or bundled with long arms/sweep changes; this pairs the full 15 deg wedge with carbon (dodging the printed-material thickness floor) and genuine, not minimal, arm/plate stiffness margin at near-stock sweep so the frame can actually survive long enough to t
- g48 `f947db57` fitness 6.605 Wh/km-agg — was: Same wide-arm/thick-shaft storm-hardened carbon build as the failed attempt, but with reduced sweep offsets (38/45 instead of 41/49) and correspondingly larger plate scales (1.2/1.18 instead of 1.15/1.15) so the swept tongue bolts stay seated on the main plate per the offset-to-plate-growth coupling.
- g49 `83c3edff` fitness 6.402 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family is PA12-CF held right at the printed-material thickness floor with minimal stiffness margin, so mass is already at its practical minimum for that material and storm sits flat at 4.62 regardless of small gene tweaks; this pivots to PET-CF (never validly flown per the failure histogram) at genuine, not floor, stiffness margin with true stock sweep and moderate arm length, iso
- g49 `98d59d77` INVALID (arm tip deflection (asa)) — was: The wide-arm/narrow-waist storm-hardened build failed prescreen on rotor disk overlap because it stacked short arm_length_scale (0.85) with max width (1.15) and an aggressive waist cut (0.45) at narrow sweep, so this keeps the genuinely-wide, real-stiffness ASA arm concept but lengthens the arm to 1.1 for disk clearance, eases width/waist to 1.05/0.6, and holds both sweeps near stock so no plate-s
- g49 `b5073af9` fitness 6.688 Wh/km-agg — was: The rear-sweep-opening pivot failed prescreen because rear sweep 50deg (+14 past the 36deg stock reference) was paired with only 1.16/1.05 plate growth -- well under the ~0.1-per-5deg rule for a 14deg offset -- so this keeps the same storm-gust rear-separation idea but grows plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to 1.28/1.18 to keep the tongue bolts seated, lengthens the arm to 1.05 (rather than sh
- g51 `4981aebc` fitness 6.484 Wh/km-agg — was: Both prescreen failures held arm_length_scale at the floor-mass 0.8 elite value while perturbing width/waist/sweep, so this pivots to genuinely long carbon arms (1.2, well clear of any tip-overlap margin) at true stock-ish sweep and zero wedge to isolate whether lower disk loading alone -- with no printed-material thickness floor -- beats the plateaued short-arm family.
- g51 `8b0b576d` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: Every long-arm pivot so far (g43/g44/g47/g48) switched to carbon to dodge the printed-material thickness floor and still lost by 0.2-1.3 Wh/km-agg, which points at carbon itself -- not the disk-loading lever -- as the losing variable, so this tests genuinely long arms (1.10, well beyond elite's 0.80) for lower induced power on PA12-CF, the material that's actually winning, with a moderate width/th
- g51 `ec33a483` fitness 6.728 Wh/km-agg — was: The failed batch tried sweep/width tweaks at short 0.8 arms and clipped rotor tip clearance, so this instead lengthens the arms to 1.05 for real radial margin while genuinely opening both sweeps for storm-gust rotor separation, growing plate_length/width by ~0.22 per the offset-to-plate-growth rule so the swept tongue bolts stay seated, on never-validly-flown PET-CF at real stiffness margin.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 17, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 34, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 17, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 38, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 27, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 24, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 8, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.01 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.20 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.60 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.19 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.15 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.52 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pla_plus)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 12 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 PIVOTAL designs that abandon that trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space. Do NOT refine the elites — a pivot that lands near them is a wasted round. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate e44921a6 — PLA+ has only ever been flown once (at insufficient margin, failing arm tip deflection) and never isolated with real stiffness margin, so this pairs it with a thick low-taper arm cross-section (0.9 waist = minimal narrowing, 0.0065 thickness) at moderate length and true stock-ish sweep/plate scale to test whether the material itself -- not just PA12-CF's floor-mass recipe -- can survive and competflew at 6.606 Wh/km
candidate 1633db9f — Every prior max-wedge attempt on ASA/PETG/PLA+ carried insufficient arm margin and failed on tip deflection before the frontal-area benefit could even be measured; this stacks near-max wedge (14deg) with a deliberately over-built ASA arm (1.1 width, 0.9 waist, 0.008 thickness -- well past anything previously tried) at true stock sweep/plate scale so no other confound can explain a loss if wedge stflew at 6.942 Wh/km
candidate 13bc209e — rejected pre-flight (plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)) — Every elite and every pivot has sat deck_gap near its max (~0.039) for stack clearance and never tested the low end; this pairs a near-floor deck_gap (0.025, minimal standoff/prop-wash coupling in storm) with a genuinely narrow, thickness-compensated PA12-CF arm cross-section (0.65 width, 0.007 thickness) for a small-profile crosswind/gust build, isolating the deck_gap variable on the one material
candidate e7981658 — rejected pre-flight (rotor too close to deck/battery) — Same short-arm narrow-cross-section carbon-adjacent PA12-CF concept that failed only on plate_main web thickness at 0.97 plate scale (below the safe margin above the pinned FC-stack holes), so this keeps every other gene identical and simply raises plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to 1.05/1.04 to restore adequate web material around the pinned holes.

7cb5e0fb0f54

5.992 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.83
crosswind	3.68
gusty_light	3.54
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.60

ecf9c2cbfabb

5.996 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.82
crosswind	3.68
gusty_light	3.54
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.60

c310a2ff7746

5.997 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.83
crosswind	3.68
gusty_light	3.54
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.60

fdf4ad74657b

5.998 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.83
crosswind	3.68
gusty_light	3.54
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.60

934f4825ec4e

6.001 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.83
crosswind	3.69
gusty_light	3.54
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.60

a07a02cbf107

6.005 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.83
crosswind	3.69
gusty_light	3.54
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.61

c6544c09af2a

6.009 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.83
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.61

b964270b85eb

6.018 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.84
crosswind	3.69
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.62

80f7a38eec35

6.023 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.85
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.62

e44921a649f0

6.606 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.45
cold_headwind	4.25
crosswind	4.07
gusty_light	3.89
hot_thin	3.69
storm	5.07

1633db9fe7be

6.942 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.60
cold_headwind	4.54
crosswind	4.28
gusty_light	4.07
hot_thin	3.84
storm	5.33

0092f2d778a5

6.977 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.65
cold_headwind	4.52
crosswind	4.29
gusty_light	4.10
hot_thin	3.89
storm	5.35

e9cc205ce9ad

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.83
crosswind	3.68
gusty_light	3.54
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.60

a825a8f60ed3

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.27
cold_headwind	4.03
crosswind	3.85
gusty_light	3.68
hot_thin	3.49
storm	4.80

f2714780b3c3

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pla_plus)

calm_warm	3.41
cold_headwind	4.19
crosswind	3.98
gusty_light	3.81
hot_thin	3.62
storm	4.97

16f84df38246

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pet_cf)

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.85
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.57
hot_thin	3.40
storm	4.64

generation 51

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 3 design(s) injected, 2 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	3
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	1
mutants (single parent)	1
pivot crosses (far parent)	7
random immigrants	1

mutation σ 0.038 of gene range
pivot σ 0.061 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 51 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.55..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.4..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.0025..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.5..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257, g21 6.257, g22 6.172, g23 6.165, g24 6.144, g25 6.144, g26 6.144, g27 6.144, g28 6.144, g29 6.144, g30 6.144, g31 6.144, g32 6.144, g33 6.144, g34 6.144, g35 6.144, g36 6.113, g37 6.113, g38 6.113, g39 6.051, g40 6.048, g41 6.045, g42 6.038, g43 6.035, g44 6.027, g45 6.023, g46 6.023, g47 6.020, g48 6.019, g49 5.996, g50 5.996 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 11 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 5.996 Wh/km-agg, frame 67 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7986, "arm_width_scale": 0.83, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4952, "arm_thickness": 0.0043, "front_sweep_deg": 35.3589, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.5455, "plate_length_scale": 0.9717, "plate_width_scale": 1.0114, "deck_gap": 0.0391, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2279, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8774, "material": 0.2426} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.16, "cold_headwind": 3.82, "crosswind": 3.68, "gusty_light": 3.54, "hot_thin": 3.37, "storm": 4.6}
fitness 6.009 Wh/km-agg, frame 66 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7969, "arm_width_scale": 0.8118, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5642, "arm_thickness": 0.0043, "front_sweep_deg": 36.3164, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.4408, "plate_length_scale": 0.9745, "plate_width_scale": 1.0062, "deck_gap": 0.039, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2261, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8011, "material": 0.2837} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.16, "cold_headwind": 3.84, "crosswind": 3.69, "gusty_light": 3.54, "hot_thin": 3.37, "storm": 4.61}
fitness 6.018 Wh/km-agg, frame 68 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8178, "arm_width_scale": 0.8245, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5617, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 38.0994, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.425, "plate_length_scale": 0.9732, "plate_width_scale": 0.9792, "deck_gap": 0.0391, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.1524, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8812, "material": 0.2193} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.17, "cold_headwind": 3.84, "crosswind": 3.7, "gusty_light": 3.55, "hot_thin": 3.38, "storm": 4.62}
fitness 6.018 Wh/km-agg, frame 68 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7986, "arm_width_scale": 0.8226, "arm_waist_scale": 0.56, "arm_thickness": 0.0043, "front_sweep_deg": 35.3584, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.5457, "plate_length_scale": 0.9717, "plate_width_scale": 1.0085, "deck_gap": 0.0391, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2279, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8774, "material": 0.2432} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.17, "cold_headwind": 3.84, "crosswind": 3.69, "gusty_light": 3.55, "hot_thin": 3.38, "storm": 4.62}
fitness 6.019 Wh/km-agg, frame 68 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7986, "arm_width_scale": 0.8226, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5619, "arm_thickness": 0.0043, "front_sweep_deg": 35.3589, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.5455, "plate_length_scale": 0.9717, "plate_width_scale": 1.0085, "deck_gap": 0.0391, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2279, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8774, "material": 0.2426} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.17, "cold_headwind": 3.84, "crosswind": 3.7, "gusty_light": 3.55, "hot_thin": 3.38, "storm": 4.62}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g42 `95e92047` fitness 6.104 Wh/km-agg — was: The pa12_cf elite family only won by being lighter than carbon at a thickness margin forced up to the printed-material 0.8 floor, but carbon plate has no such floor and is stiffer per unit thickness, so this switches to carbon (material 0.08) at the identical elite geometry while cutting plate_thickness_scale to 0.62 and arm_thickness to 0.0038 to test whether carbon's higher stiffness lets it und
- g42 `dbcbc551` fitness 6.048 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past arm_waist change was bundled with width/thickness bumps for stiffness or with wedge/long-arm pivots and lost, so this isolates a genuine further mid-shaft narrowing (0.58->0.48) at the exact elite floor-mass geometry, with only a minimal thickness bump (0.0042->0.0046) to cover the pa12_cf deflection floor, to test whether mid-arm drag cut alone pays off without a confounding lever.
- g42 `ef635239` fitness 6.038 Wh/km-agg — was: Same PA12-CF short-arm/36-42-sweep design as the failed attempt, but restore plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to the validated ~1.03/1.02 elite range instead of shrinking them to 0.97/0.96, since the failure was a too-thin main-plate web from under-scaled plates, not the arm or material genes.
- g43 `2870779c` fitness 6.243 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior long-arm pivot paired the lower disk loading with either a printed-material thickness floor or extra width/waist stiffness margin and lost to the combined mass tax, but carbon's superior stiffness-per-mass has never been paired with genuinely long arms and truly minimal thickness/plate mass, testing whether it lets long arms finally pay off.
- g43 `52d0f02a` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Every past max-wedge test held sweep near stock and every open-rear-sweep test used minimal-margin materials, so this stacks max battery wedge (frontal-area cut) with a genuinely opened rear sweep (prop-wash separation for storm gusts) and tough ASA with real plate stiffness, none of which has been combined before.
- g43 `b060e8d5` INVALID (arm resonance with rotor 1P) — was: Every past stiffness pivot bundled width AND thickness increases together, conflating frontal-drag-adding width with drag-neutral through-thickness bending stiffness, so this isolates a thin-narrow-but-maximally-thick carbon arm cross-section (min width, low waist, max thickness) to test whether out-of-plane stiffness alone -- without added frontal profile -- cracks the storm plateau.
- g44 `044e1644` fitness 6.671 Wh/km-agg — was: The plateau is built entirely on floor-mass PA12-CF short arms (0.79-0.81) with minimal stiffness margin -- storm is stuck at 4.63-4.64 across every elite variant, so this pivots to carbon (no printed-material thickness floor) with genuinely long arms (1.22, lower disk loading and more prop-wash separation) plus real width/waist/thickness stiffness margin and a moderate 8deg wedge, at the proven-s
- g44 `5bc6b43e` fitness 6.867 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past stiffness pivot either isolated one axis (thickness alone failed on arm resonance) or bundled stiffness with a mass-cutting confound and lost; this abandons mass optimization entirely for a storm-hardened build -- wide arms (1.1), minimal waist narrowing (1.1), thick shafts (0.0075) and thick ASA plates (1.1x) at stock geometry and zero wedge -- to test whether committing real structura
- g44 `72423ad9` fitness 6.613 Wh/km-agg — was: Max battery wedge has only ever been tested with short printed-material arms or bundled with sweep changes that broke tongue geometry; this instead pairs carbon (dodging the printed-material floor to keep mass low) with a genuinely narrow arm cross-section (0.6 width, real drag cut) and a longer arm (1.1) at the untouched stock sweep, stacking frontal-area reduction from both the wedge and the arm
- g45 `052b89f9` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: PETG has never been validly flown (every prior attempt used a different tough material or insufficient stiffness margin and hit arm tip deflection), and max battery wedge has never been paired with a genuinely reinforced arm cross-section at safe stock geometry; this isolates full 15deg wedge frontal-area cut with PETG at true stock sweep/plate scale, thick arm shafts and above-floor plate thickne
- g45 `a8588e06` fitness 6.588 Wh/km-agg — was: Every decoupled-sweep pivot so far only opened the rear for prop-wash separation; this instead widens only the front sweep (for better front-rotor separation against gusts/crosswind) while holding rear near stock, pairs it with carbon so plate/arm mass stays low despite the much larger plate growth (1.25/1.18, well beyond the 1.13/1.12 that already failed on tongue bolts at a smaller sweep offset)
- g45 `f7d5fe1f` fitness 6.812 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite is built on floor-mass PA12-CF short arms with zero battery wedge, and storm is stuck at 4.63-4.64 across the entire family; this abandons that trait entirely for carbon (no printed-material thickness floor) at true stock sweep/plate scale with real width/waist/thickness stiffness margin, generous deck_gap for wedge clearance, and a moderate 10deg wedge to finally cut frontal area on a
- g47 `30ebf347` INVALID (arm tip deflection (asa)) — was: Every ASA/PETG attempt used minimal stiffness margin at floor mass and failed on arm-tip deflection before the aero benefit could even be assessed, and every max-wedge test bundled it with long arms or narrow sweep changes; this isolates the full 15deg wedge frontal-area cut on ASA at moderate stock-ish geometry with genuine (not floor) width/thickness margin so the material can actually survive t
- g47 `ba60c54f` fitness 7.180 Wh/km-agg — was: Every long-arm pivot so far paired moderate arm length with either extra stiffness overhead or a wedge confound and lost; this pushes arm length near its max for genuinely low disk loading, opens both sweeps for real rotor separation against storm gusts, and uses carbon (no printed-material thickness floor) with proportionally grown plates so the swept tongue bolts stay seated.
- g48 `79ec1e75` fitness 7.265 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family is floor-mass PA12-CF at short arms with minimal stiffness margin and storm is stuck at 4.62-4.64 across all of them; this abandons that trait for carbon (no printed-material thickness floor) at genuinely long arms with real width/thickness stiffness margin instead of a thickness-floor minimum, and holds sweep close to stock with zero wedge so long-arm disk-loading reductio
- g48 `b799a97f` fitness 6.936 Wh/km-agg — was: Full battery wedge for frontal-area cut has only ever been validly flown on floor-margin printed materials that then failed arm tip deflection, or bundled with long arms/sweep changes; this pairs the full 15 deg wedge with carbon (dodging the printed-material thickness floor) and genuine, not minimal, arm/plate stiffness margin at near-stock sweep so the frame can actually survive long enough to t
- g48 `f947db57` fitness 6.605 Wh/km-agg — was: Same wide-arm/thick-shaft storm-hardened carbon build as the failed attempt, but with reduced sweep offsets (38/45 instead of 41/49) and correspondingly larger plate scales (1.2/1.18 instead of 1.15/1.15) so the swept tongue bolts stay seated on the main plate per the offset-to-plate-growth coupling.
- g49 `83c3edff` fitness 6.402 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family is PA12-CF held right at the printed-material thickness floor with minimal stiffness margin, so mass is already at its practical minimum for that material and storm sits flat at 4.62 regardless of small gene tweaks; this pivots to PET-CF (never validly flown per the failure histogram) at genuine, not floor, stiffness margin with true stock sweep and moderate arm length, iso
- g49 `98d59d77` INVALID (arm tip deflection (asa)) — was: The wide-arm/narrow-waist storm-hardened build failed prescreen on rotor disk overlap because it stacked short arm_length_scale (0.85) with max width (1.15) and an aggressive waist cut (0.45) at narrow sweep, so this keeps the genuinely-wide, real-stiffness ASA arm concept but lengthens the arm to 1.1 for disk clearance, eases width/waist to 1.05/0.6, and holds both sweeps near stock so no plate-s
- g49 `b5073af9` fitness 6.688 Wh/km-agg — was: The rear-sweep-opening pivot failed prescreen because rear sweep 50deg (+14 past the 36deg stock reference) was paired with only 1.16/1.05 plate growth -- well under the ~0.1-per-5deg rule for a 14deg offset -- so this keeps the same storm-gust rear-separation idea but grows plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to 1.28/1.18 to keep the tongue bolts seated, lengthens the arm to 1.05 (rather than sh

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 17, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 34, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 17, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 38, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 27, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 22, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 8, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.01 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.20 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.60 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.19 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.15 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.52 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pla_plus)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 11 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 PIVOTAL designs that abandon that trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space. Do NOT refine the elites — a pivot that lands near them is a wasted round. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 8b0b576d — Every long-arm pivot so far (g43/g44/g47/g48) switched to carbon to dodge the printed-material thickness floor and still lost by 0.2-1.3 Wh/km-agg, which points at carbon itself -- not the disk-loading lever -- as the losing variable, so this tests genuinely long arms (1.10, well beyond elite's 0.80) for lower induced power on PA12-CF, the material that's actually winning, with a moderate width/thinvalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
candidate 4981aebc — Both prescreen failures held arm_length_scale at the floor-mass 0.8 elite value while perturbing width/waist/sweep, so this pivots to genuinely long carbon arms (1.2, well clear of any tip-overlap margin) at true stock-ish sweep and zero wedge to isolate whether lower disk loading alone -- with no printed-material thickness floor -- beats the plateaued short-arm family.flew at 6.484 Wh/km
candidate ec33a483 — The failed batch tried sweep/width tweaks at short 0.8 arms and clipped rotor tip clearance, so this instead lengthens the arms to 1.05 for real radial margin while genuinely opening both sweeps for storm-gust rotor separation, growing plate_length/width by ~0.22 per the offset-to-plate-growth rule so the swept tongue bolts stay seated, on never-validly-flown PET-CF at real stiffness margin.flew at 6.728 Wh/km
candidate 79866330 — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Storm is pack-limited (flat 4.60-4.64 across the entire elite family regardless of stiffness tweaks), so mass/drag cuts on the other five scenarios are the real lever, and no prior test has cleanly isolated a real drag-focused narrow arm from a stiffness confound: the one min-width+max-thickness attempt also minimized waist and hit rotor-1P resonance, so this keeps PA12-CF and near-stock sweep but
candidate 33df05d8 — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Every battery-wedge test has bundled the tilt with a material switch or long-arm/wide-sweep change and failed either structurally or on fitness, so no one has cleanly isolated a modest (not max) wedge plus a real opened front sweep for prop-wash separation against gusts on the proven-safe PA12-CF short-arm geometry, and since storm won't move much regardless (pack-limited), this bets the frontal-a

ecf9c2cbfabb

5.996 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.82
crosswind	3.68
gusty_light	3.54
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.60

fdf4ad74657b

5.998 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.83
crosswind	3.68
gusty_light	3.54
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.60

86d3e68d6154

6.006 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.83
crosswind	3.69
gusty_light	3.54
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.61

07b4654d6ff5

6.009 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.84
crosswind	3.69
gusty_light	3.54
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.61

d147d836d586

6.013 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.84
crosswind	3.69
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.62

dabcd494aadd

6.018 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.84
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.62

b964270b85eb

6.018 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.84
crosswind	3.69
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.62

3f2badcff637

6.081 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.20
cold_headwind	3.89
crosswind	3.74
gusty_light	3.59
hot_thin	3.41
storm	4.67

fe07a6823ca4

6.090 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.20
cold_headwind	3.90
crosswind	3.74
gusty_light	3.59
hot_thin	3.41
storm	4.67

03f0edc82eda

6.196 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.27
cold_headwind	3.94
crosswind	3.80
gusty_light	3.66
hot_thin	3.49
storm	4.76

ebd3344c77d0

6.244 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.28
cold_headwind	4.00
crosswind	3.84
gusty_light	3.68
hot_thin	3.50
storm	4.79

4981aebc08f0

6.484 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.39
cold_headwind	4.16
crosswind	3.99
gusty_light	3.82
hot_thin	3.63
storm	4.98

ec33a483fc3f

6.728 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.50
cold_headwind	4.36
crosswind	4.14
gusty_light	3.95
hot_thin	3.74
storm	5.17

c85fb3a7d14d

6.932 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.63
cold_headwind	4.48
crosswind	4.25
gusty_light	4.06
hot_thin	3.87
storm	5.32

4d40f24cc6ad

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.13
cold_headwind	3.79
crosswind	3.65
gusty_light	3.51
hot_thin	3.34
storm	4.56

8b0b576d82a5

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.27
cold_headwind	4.05
crosswind	3.86
gusty_light	3.69
hot_thin	3.49
storm	4.82

generation 50

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 0 design(s) injected, 6 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	4
crossovers (tournament parents)	5
pivot crosses (far parent)	6
random immigrants	1

mutation σ 0.039 of gene range
pivot σ 0.063 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 50 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.55..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.4..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.0025..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.5..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257, g21 6.257, g22 6.172, g23 6.165, g24 6.144, g25 6.144, g26 6.144, g27 6.144, g28 6.144, g29 6.144, g30 6.144, g31 6.144, g32 6.144, g33 6.144, g34 6.144, g35 6.144, g36 6.113, g37 6.113, g38 6.113, g39 6.051, g40 6.048, g41 6.045, g42 6.038, g43 6.035, g44 6.027, g45 6.023, g46 6.023, g47 6.020, g48 6.019, g49 5.996 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 10 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 5.996 Wh/km-agg, frame 67 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7986, "arm_width_scale": 0.83, "arm_waist_scale": 0.4952, "arm_thickness": 0.0043, "front_sweep_deg": 35.3589, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.5455, "plate_length_scale": 0.9717, "plate_width_scale": 1.0114, "deck_gap": 0.0391, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2279, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8774, "material": 0.2426} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.16, "cold_headwind": 3.82, "crosswind": 3.68, "gusty_light": 3.54, "hot_thin": 3.37, "storm": 4.6}
fitness 6.019 Wh/km-agg, frame 68 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7986, "arm_width_scale": 0.8226, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5619, "arm_thickness": 0.0043, "front_sweep_deg": 35.3589, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.5455, "plate_length_scale": 0.9717, "plate_width_scale": 1.0085, "deck_gap": 0.0391, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2279, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8774, "material": 0.2426} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.17, "cold_headwind": 3.84, "crosswind": 3.7, "gusty_light": 3.55, "hot_thin": 3.38, "storm": 4.62}
fitness 6.020 Wh/km-agg, frame 68 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7985, "arm_width_scale": 0.8226, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5633, "arm_thickness": 0.0043, "front_sweep_deg": 35.3689, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.5426, "plate_length_scale": 0.9726, "plate_width_scale": 1.0087, "deck_gap": 0.0391, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2299, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8775, "material": 0.2424} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.17, "cold_headwind": 3.84, "crosswind": 3.7, "gusty_light": 3.55, "hot_thin": 3.38, "storm": 4.62}
fitness 6.020 Wh/km-agg, frame 69 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8039, "arm_width_scale": 0.8229, "arm_waist_scale": 0.548, "arm_thickness": 0.0043, "front_sweep_deg": 35.2986, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.0041, "plate_length_scale": 1.0359, "plate_width_scale": 1.0112, "deck_gap": 0.0391, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.1956, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8537, "material": 0.276} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.17, "cold_headwind": 3.84, "crosswind": 3.7, "gusty_light": 3.55, "hot_thin": 3.38, "storm": 4.62}
fitness 6.021 Wh/km-agg, frame 69 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8038, "arm_width_scale": 0.8229, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5481, "arm_thickness": 0.0043, "front_sweep_deg": 35.1655, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.0063, "plate_length_scale": 1.0358, "plate_width_scale": 1.0113, "deck_gap": 0.0391, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.1957, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8555, "material": 0.276} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.17, "cold_headwind": 3.84, "crosswind": 3.7, "gusty_light": 3.55, "hot_thin": 3.38, "storm": 4.62}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g42 `95e92047` fitness 6.104 Wh/km-agg — was: The pa12_cf elite family only won by being lighter than carbon at a thickness margin forced up to the printed-material 0.8 floor, but carbon plate has no such floor and is stiffer per unit thickness, so this switches to carbon (material 0.08) at the identical elite geometry while cutting plate_thickness_scale to 0.62 and arm_thickness to 0.0038 to test whether carbon's higher stiffness lets it und
- g42 `dbcbc551` fitness 6.048 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past arm_waist change was bundled with width/thickness bumps for stiffness or with wedge/long-arm pivots and lost, so this isolates a genuine further mid-shaft narrowing (0.58->0.48) at the exact elite floor-mass geometry, with only a minimal thickness bump (0.0042->0.0046) to cover the pa12_cf deflection floor, to test whether mid-arm drag cut alone pays off without a confounding lever.
- g42 `ef635239` fitness 6.038 Wh/km-agg — was: Same PA12-CF short-arm/36-42-sweep design as the failed attempt, but restore plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to the validated ~1.03/1.02 elite range instead of shrinking them to 0.97/0.96, since the failure was a too-thin main-plate web from under-scaled plates, not the arm or material genes.
- g43 `2870779c` fitness 6.243 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior long-arm pivot paired the lower disk loading with either a printed-material thickness floor or extra width/waist stiffness margin and lost to the combined mass tax, but carbon's superior stiffness-per-mass has never been paired with genuinely long arms and truly minimal thickness/plate mass, testing whether it lets long arms finally pay off.
- g43 `52d0f02a` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Every past max-wedge test held sweep near stock and every open-rear-sweep test used minimal-margin materials, so this stacks max battery wedge (frontal-area cut) with a genuinely opened rear sweep (prop-wash separation for storm gusts) and tough ASA with real plate stiffness, none of which has been combined before.
- g43 `b060e8d5` INVALID (arm resonance with rotor 1P) — was: Every past stiffness pivot bundled width AND thickness increases together, conflating frontal-drag-adding width with drag-neutral through-thickness bending stiffness, so this isolates a thin-narrow-but-maximally-thick carbon arm cross-section (min width, low waist, max thickness) to test whether out-of-plane stiffness alone -- without added frontal profile -- cracks the storm plateau.
- g44 `044e1644` fitness 6.671 Wh/km-agg — was: The plateau is built entirely on floor-mass PA12-CF short arms (0.79-0.81) with minimal stiffness margin -- storm is stuck at 4.63-4.64 across every elite variant, so this pivots to carbon (no printed-material thickness floor) with genuinely long arms (1.22, lower disk loading and more prop-wash separation) plus real width/waist/thickness stiffness margin and a moderate 8deg wedge, at the proven-s
- g44 `5bc6b43e` fitness 6.867 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past stiffness pivot either isolated one axis (thickness alone failed on arm resonance) or bundled stiffness with a mass-cutting confound and lost; this abandons mass optimization entirely for a storm-hardened build -- wide arms (1.1), minimal waist narrowing (1.1), thick shafts (0.0075) and thick ASA plates (1.1x) at stock geometry and zero wedge -- to test whether committing real structura
- g44 `72423ad9` fitness 6.613 Wh/km-agg — was: Max battery wedge has only ever been tested with short printed-material arms or bundled with sweep changes that broke tongue geometry; this instead pairs carbon (dodging the printed-material floor to keep mass low) with a genuinely narrow arm cross-section (0.6 width, real drag cut) and a longer arm (1.1) at the untouched stock sweep, stacking frontal-area reduction from both the wedge and the arm
- g45 `052b89f9` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: PETG has never been validly flown (every prior attempt used a different tough material or insufficient stiffness margin and hit arm tip deflection), and max battery wedge has never been paired with a genuinely reinforced arm cross-section at safe stock geometry; this isolates full 15deg wedge frontal-area cut with PETG at true stock sweep/plate scale, thick arm shafts and above-floor plate thickne
- g45 `a8588e06` fitness 6.588 Wh/km-agg — was: Every decoupled-sweep pivot so far only opened the rear for prop-wash separation; this instead widens only the front sweep (for better front-rotor separation against gusts/crosswind) while holding rear near stock, pairs it with carbon so plate/arm mass stays low despite the much larger plate growth (1.25/1.18, well beyond the 1.13/1.12 that already failed on tongue bolts at a smaller sweep offset)
- g45 `f7d5fe1f` fitness 6.812 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite is built on floor-mass PA12-CF short arms with zero battery wedge, and storm is stuck at 4.63-4.64 across the entire family; this abandons that trait entirely for carbon (no printed-material thickness floor) at true stock sweep/plate scale with real width/waist/thickness stiffness margin, generous deck_gap for wedge clearance, and a moderate 10deg wedge to finally cut frontal area on a
- g47 `30ebf347` INVALID (arm tip deflection (asa)) — was: Every ASA/PETG attempt used minimal stiffness margin at floor mass and failed on arm-tip deflection before the aero benefit could even be assessed, and every max-wedge test bundled it with long arms or narrow sweep changes; this isolates the full 15deg wedge frontal-area cut on ASA at moderate stock-ish geometry with genuine (not floor) width/thickness margin so the material can actually survive t
- g47 `ba60c54f` fitness 7.180 Wh/km-agg — was: Every long-arm pivot so far paired moderate arm length with either extra stiffness overhead or a wedge confound and lost; this pushes arm length near its max for genuinely low disk loading, opens both sweeps for real rotor separation against storm gusts, and uses carbon (no printed-material thickness floor) with proportionally grown plates so the swept tongue bolts stay seated.
- g48 `79ec1e75` fitness 7.265 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family is floor-mass PA12-CF at short arms with minimal stiffness margin and storm is stuck at 4.62-4.64 across all of them; this abandons that trait for carbon (no printed-material thickness floor) at genuinely long arms with real width/thickness stiffness margin instead of a thickness-floor minimum, and holds sweep close to stock with zero wedge so long-arm disk-loading reductio
- g48 `b799a97f` fitness 6.936 Wh/km-agg — was: Full battery wedge for frontal-area cut has only ever been validly flown on floor-margin printed materials that then failed arm tip deflection, or bundled with long arms/sweep changes; this pairs the full 15 deg wedge with carbon (dodging the printed-material thickness floor) and genuine, not minimal, arm/plate stiffness margin at near-stock sweep so the frame can actually survive long enough to t
- g48 `f947db57` fitness 6.605 Wh/km-agg — was: Same wide-arm/thick-shaft storm-hardened carbon build as the failed attempt, but with reduced sweep offsets (38/45 instead of 41/49) and correspondingly larger plate scales (1.2/1.18 instead of 1.15/1.15) so the swept tongue bolts stay seated on the main plate per the offset-to-plate-growth coupling.
- g49 `83c3edff` fitness 6.402 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family is PA12-CF held right at the printed-material thickness floor with minimal stiffness margin, so mass is already at its practical minimum for that material and storm sits flat at 4.62 regardless of small gene tweaks; this pivots to PET-CF (never validly flown per the failure histogram) at genuine, not floor, stiffness margin with true stock sweep and moderate arm length, iso
- g49 `98d59d77` INVALID (arm tip deflection (asa)) — was: The wide-arm/narrow-waist storm-hardened build failed prescreen on rotor disk overlap because it stacked short arm_length_scale (0.85) with max width (1.15) and an aggressive waist cut (0.45) at narrow sweep, so this keeps the genuinely-wide, real-stiffness ASA arm concept but lengthens the arm to 1.1 for disk clearance, eases width/waist to 1.05/0.6, and holds both sweeps near stock so no plate-s
- g49 `b5073af9` fitness 6.688 Wh/km-agg — was: The rear-sweep-opening pivot failed prescreen because rear sweep 50deg (+14 past the 36deg stock reference) was paired with only 1.16/1.05 plate growth -- well under the ~0.1-per-5deg rule for a 14deg offset -- so this keeps the same storm-gust rear-separation idea but grows plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to 1.28/1.18 to keep the tongue bolts seated, lengthens the arm to 1.05 (rather than sh

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 17, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 34, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 17, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 38, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 27, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 19, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 8, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.01 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.20 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.60 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.19 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.15 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.52 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pla_plus)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 10 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 PIVOTAL designs that abandon that trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space. Do NOT refine the elites — a pivot that lands near them is a wasted round. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 88b013ae — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Every ASA attempt so far bundled it with an extreme confound (full wedge, max width, or thickness-only isolation) and failed arm-tip deflection before the material's aero/mass benefit could be judged, so this flies ASA at short elite-like arms and near-stock sweep with genuine (not floor, not extreme) width/thickness margin and zero wedge to finally get a clean, valid read on whether ASA can compe
candidate b067d518 — rejected pre-flight (plate web too thin (plate_main 1.08 mm, stock 1.90 mm)) — Deck_gap has sat frozen near 0.039 across every elite and every past proposal despite a 0.02-0.045 range, and plate aspect ratio has only ever been scaled symmetrically, so this holds the proven pa12_cf floor-mass short-arm geometry fixed but pushes deck_gap to near-max for prop-deck clearance and narrows plate_width_scale to its enforced floor (0.95) for a slimmer deck cross-section, isolating tw
candidate db1fb335 — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Every carbon pivot so far either scraped floor thickness at elite-length arms (lost to under-margin, 6.10) or paired carbon's mass freedom with genuinely long arms that got progressively worse the longer they got (6.24 to 7.27 as length rose), so this tests the untried middle: carbon at arms shorter than the current elite with real, non-floor width/thickness stiffness margin and sweep pulled back
candidate e51afd5a — rejected pre-flight (plates too thin for cf_plate (1.1 < 1.2 mm)) — The whole elite family (and every failed pivot) treated storm as the thing to harden against via extra mass/stiffness, but storm is pack-limited so frame changes barely move it -- this instead doubles down on the opposite, untried direction: push arm_length_scale to the short end (0.76, below the elite's 0.80) with carbon (no printed-material thickness floor) so both arm and plate mass fall well p
candidate bf88116f — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — PET-CF at genuine (not floor) stiffness margin and true stock sweep was the closest a pivot has come to the PA12-CF elite (6.402), but it has never been paired with battery wedge; since storm won't punish the frontal-area cut and every past wedge test was confounded with carbon/ASA/long-arm changes, this isolates a moderate 6deg wedge on that near-miss recipe to see if it closes the gap on cold_he
candidate 062ac868 — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — Past sweep pivots always opened only one sweep or bundled both-open with a carbon/long-arm mass confound and lost by 800+; this isolates a genuinely opened front+rear sweep (40/48 vs the elite's 35.3/42.5) at the proven floor-mass PA12-CF geometry with plate scales grown per the offset-to-plate-growth rule, testing whether the wider prop-wash separation and smaller crosswind side-profile pay off o

ecf9c2cbfabb

5.996 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.82
crosswind	3.68
gusty_light	3.54
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.60

07b4654d6ff5

6.009 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.84
crosswind	3.69
gusty_light	3.54
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.61

8ae6b775fda3

6.018 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.84
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.62

b964270b85eb

6.018 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.84
crosswind	3.69
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.62

e7bb72f4bb57

6.019 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.84
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.62

6a56f2c2924b

6.020 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.84
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.62

750e6c91158d

6.025 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.85
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.63

c742abdca96a

6.027 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.85
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.63

5752a1dacc80

6.034 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.86
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.63

e7bcf6e0d05f

6.036 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.85
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.63

da3b172ff23e

6.037 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.86
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.63

6d454bea2623

6.043 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.86
crosswind	3.72
gusty_light	3.57
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.64

4acc247075c2

6.218 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.28
cold_headwind	3.96
crosswind	3.81
gusty_light	3.67
hot_thin	3.50
storm	4.77

428ea28fc738

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.82
crosswind	3.68
gusty_light	3.54
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.60

f0853b301bb5

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.28
cold_headwind	4.01
crosswind	3.83
gusty_light	3.67
hot_thin	3.49
storm	4.79

cf5fcbff7c1d

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.14
cold_headwind	3.80
crosswind	3.66
gusty_light	3.52
hot_thin	3.35
storm	4.57

generation 49

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 3 design(s) injected, 2 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	4
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	4
pivot crosses (far parent)	5

mutation σ 0.040 of gene range
pivot σ 0.065 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 49 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.55..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.4..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.0025..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.5..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257, g21 6.257, g22 6.172, g23 6.165, g24 6.144, g25 6.144, g26 6.144, g27 6.144, g28 6.144, g29 6.144, g30 6.144, g31 6.144, g32 6.144, g33 6.144, g34 6.144, g35 6.144, g36 6.113, g37 6.113, g38 6.113, g39 6.051, g40 6.048, g41 6.045, g42 6.038, g43 6.035, g44 6.027, g45 6.023, g46 6.023, g47 6.020, g48 6.019 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 9 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.019 Wh/km-agg, frame 68 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7986, "arm_width_scale": 0.8226, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5619, "arm_thickness": 0.0043, "front_sweep_deg": 35.3589, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.5455, "plate_length_scale": 0.9717, "plate_width_scale": 1.0085, "deck_gap": 0.0391, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2279, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8774, "material": 0.2426} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.17, "cold_headwind": 3.84, "crosswind": 3.7, "gusty_light": 3.55, "hot_thin": 3.38, "storm": 4.62}
fitness 6.020 Wh/km-agg, frame 68 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7985, "arm_width_scale": 0.8226, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5633, "arm_thickness": 0.0043, "front_sweep_deg": 35.3689, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.5426, "plate_length_scale": 0.9726, "plate_width_scale": 1.0087, "deck_gap": 0.0391, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2299, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8775, "material": 0.2424} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.17, "cold_headwind": 3.84, "crosswind": 3.7, "gusty_light": 3.55, "hot_thin": 3.38, "storm": 4.62}
fitness 6.020 Wh/km-agg, frame 69 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8039, "arm_width_scale": 0.8229, "arm_waist_scale": 0.548, "arm_thickness": 0.0043, "front_sweep_deg": 35.2986, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.0041, "plate_length_scale": 1.0359, "plate_width_scale": 1.0112, "deck_gap": 0.0391, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.1956, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8537, "material": 0.276} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.17, "cold_headwind": 3.84, "crosswind": 3.7, "gusty_light": 3.55, "hot_thin": 3.38, "storm": 4.62}
fitness 6.023 Wh/km-agg, frame 69 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8003, "arm_width_scale": 0.826, "arm_waist_scale": 0.563, "arm_thickness": 0.0043, "front_sweep_deg": 35.3273, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.4729, "plate_length_scale": 1.0361, "plate_width_scale": 1.0081, "deck_gap": 0.0391, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.1082, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8541, "material": 0.2712} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.17, "cold_headwind": 3.84, "crosswind": 3.7, "gusty_light": 3.55, "hot_thin": 3.38, "storm": 4.62}
fitness 6.023 Wh/km-agg, frame 69 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7985, "arm_width_scale": 0.8226, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5633, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 35.3689, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.5426, "plate_length_scale": 1.0317, "plate_width_scale": 1.0087, "deck_gap": 0.0391, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2299, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8611, "material": 0.2813} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.17, "cold_headwind": 3.84, "crosswind": 3.7, "gusty_light": 3.55, "hot_thin": 3.38, "storm": 4.62}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g39 `949d4213` fitness 6.195 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past max-deck_gap or minimum-arm-width test was confounded with battery wedge, long arms, or full waist relaxation; this pushes arm_width_scale to its absolute floor (0.75, maximum root drag/mass cut) with a compensating waist bump for tip stiffness and pairs it with max deck_gap (0.045) for unobstructed prop wash under the deck -- a joint minimum-frontal-arm-section plus max-clearance combo
- g39 `a07db56c` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: The only material pivot that has ever matched the elite (PA12-CF at the exact floor-mass short-arm geometry, g36 ca88346c, 6.113) has never been repeated with ASA -- every ASA test so far bundled it with long arms, max wedge, or heavy over-reinforcement and lost badly (6.68-7.39); this isolates ASA at the identical proven floor-mass geometry with only the minimal arm-thickness and plate-thickness 
- g39 `ba333594` fitness 6.195 Wh/km-agg — was: Retry the decoupled-rear-sweep widening (front held at 36 near-stock, rear now only +3 deg past the validated 42-deg elite rather than +4 past it, at 46) with plate_length_scale and plate_width_scale both raised well past the elite's 1.03 baseline (to 1.15) so the tongue bolts stay clear of the main plate edge this time.
- g42 `95e92047` fitness 6.104 Wh/km-agg — was: The pa12_cf elite family only won by being lighter than carbon at a thickness margin forced up to the printed-material 0.8 floor, but carbon plate has no such floor and is stiffer per unit thickness, so this switches to carbon (material 0.08) at the identical elite geometry while cutting plate_thickness_scale to 0.62 and arm_thickness to 0.0038 to test whether carbon's higher stiffness lets it und
- g42 `dbcbc551` fitness 6.048 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past arm_waist change was bundled with width/thickness bumps for stiffness or with wedge/long-arm pivots and lost, so this isolates a genuine further mid-shaft narrowing (0.58->0.48) at the exact elite floor-mass geometry, with only a minimal thickness bump (0.0042->0.0046) to cover the pa12_cf deflection floor, to test whether mid-arm drag cut alone pays off without a confounding lever.
- g42 `ef635239` fitness 6.038 Wh/km-agg — was: Same PA12-CF short-arm/36-42-sweep design as the failed attempt, but restore plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to the validated ~1.03/1.02 elite range instead of shrinking them to 0.97/0.96, since the failure was a too-thin main-plate web from under-scaled plates, not the arm or material genes.
- g43 `2870779c` fitness 6.243 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior long-arm pivot paired the lower disk loading with either a printed-material thickness floor or extra width/waist stiffness margin and lost to the combined mass tax, but carbon's superior stiffness-per-mass has never been paired with genuinely long arms and truly minimal thickness/plate mass, testing whether it lets long arms finally pay off.
- g43 `52d0f02a` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Every past max-wedge test held sweep near stock and every open-rear-sweep test used minimal-margin materials, so this stacks max battery wedge (frontal-area cut) with a genuinely opened rear sweep (prop-wash separation for storm gusts) and tough ASA with real plate stiffness, none of which has been combined before.
- g43 `b060e8d5` INVALID (arm resonance with rotor 1P) — was: Every past stiffness pivot bundled width AND thickness increases together, conflating frontal-drag-adding width with drag-neutral through-thickness bending stiffness, so this isolates a thin-narrow-but-maximally-thick carbon arm cross-section (min width, low waist, max thickness) to test whether out-of-plane stiffness alone -- without added frontal profile -- cracks the storm plateau.
- g44 `044e1644` fitness 6.671 Wh/km-agg — was: The plateau is built entirely on floor-mass PA12-CF short arms (0.79-0.81) with minimal stiffness margin -- storm is stuck at 4.63-4.64 across every elite variant, so this pivots to carbon (no printed-material thickness floor) with genuinely long arms (1.22, lower disk loading and more prop-wash separation) plus real width/waist/thickness stiffness margin and a moderate 8deg wedge, at the proven-s
- g44 `5bc6b43e` fitness 6.867 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past stiffness pivot either isolated one axis (thickness alone failed on arm resonance) or bundled stiffness with a mass-cutting confound and lost; this abandons mass optimization entirely for a storm-hardened build -- wide arms (1.1), minimal waist narrowing (1.1), thick shafts (0.0075) and thick ASA plates (1.1x) at stock geometry and zero wedge -- to test whether committing real structura
- g44 `72423ad9` fitness 6.613 Wh/km-agg — was: Max battery wedge has only ever been tested with short printed-material arms or bundled with sweep changes that broke tongue geometry; this instead pairs carbon (dodging the printed-material floor to keep mass low) with a genuinely narrow arm cross-section (0.6 width, real drag cut) and a longer arm (1.1) at the untouched stock sweep, stacking frontal-area reduction from both the wedge and the arm
- g45 `052b89f9` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: PETG has never been validly flown (every prior attempt used a different tough material or insufficient stiffness margin and hit arm tip deflection), and max battery wedge has never been paired with a genuinely reinforced arm cross-section at safe stock geometry; this isolates full 15deg wedge frontal-area cut with PETG at true stock sweep/plate scale, thick arm shafts and above-floor plate thickne
- g45 `a8588e06` fitness 6.588 Wh/km-agg — was: Every decoupled-sweep pivot so far only opened the rear for prop-wash separation; this instead widens only the front sweep (for better front-rotor separation against gusts/crosswind) while holding rear near stock, pairs it with carbon so plate/arm mass stays low despite the much larger plate growth (1.25/1.18, well beyond the 1.13/1.12 that already failed on tongue bolts at a smaller sweep offset)
- g45 `f7d5fe1f` fitness 6.812 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite is built on floor-mass PA12-CF short arms with zero battery wedge, and storm is stuck at 4.63-4.64 across the entire family; this abandons that trait entirely for carbon (no printed-material thickness floor) at true stock sweep/plate scale with real width/waist/thickness stiffness margin, generous deck_gap for wedge clearance, and a moderate 10deg wedge to finally cut frontal area on a
- g47 `30ebf347` INVALID (arm tip deflection (asa)) — was: Every ASA/PETG attempt used minimal stiffness margin at floor mass and failed on arm-tip deflection before the aero benefit could even be assessed, and every max-wedge test bundled it with long arms or narrow sweep changes; this isolates the full 15deg wedge frontal-area cut on ASA at moderate stock-ish geometry with genuine (not floor) width/thickness margin so the material can actually survive t
- g47 `ba60c54f` fitness 7.180 Wh/km-agg — was: Every long-arm pivot so far paired moderate arm length with either extra stiffness overhead or a wedge confound and lost; this pushes arm length near its max for genuinely low disk loading, opens both sweeps for real rotor separation against storm gusts, and uses carbon (no printed-material thickness floor) with proportionally grown plates so the swept tongue bolts stay seated.
- g48 `79ec1e75` fitness 7.265 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family is floor-mass PA12-CF at short arms with minimal stiffness margin and storm is stuck at 4.62-4.64 across all of them; this abandons that trait for carbon (no printed-material thickness floor) at genuinely long arms with real width/thickness stiffness margin instead of a thickness-floor minimum, and holds sweep close to stock with zero wedge so long-arm disk-loading reductio
- g48 `b799a97f` fitness 6.936 Wh/km-agg — was: Full battery wedge for frontal-area cut has only ever been validly flown on floor-margin printed materials that then failed arm tip deflection, or bundled with long arms/sweep changes; this pairs the full 15 deg wedge with carbon (dodging the printed-material thickness floor) and genuine, not minimal, arm/plate stiffness margin at near-stock sweep so the frame can actually survive long enough to t
- g48 `f947db57` fitness 6.605 Wh/km-agg — was: Same wide-arm/thick-shaft storm-hardened carbon build as the failed attempt, but with reduced sweep offsets (38/45 instead of 41/49) and correspondingly larger plate scales (1.2/1.18 instead of 1.15/1.15) so the swept tongue bolts stay seated on the main plate per the offset-to-plate-growth coupling.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 17, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 34, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 17, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 38, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 27, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 19, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 8, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.01 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.20 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.60 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.19 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.15 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.52 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pla_plus)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 9 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 PIVOTAL designs that abandon that trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space. Do NOT refine the elites — a pivot that lands near them is a wasted round. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 83c3edff — The entire elite family is PA12-CF held right at the printed-material thickness floor with minimal stiffness margin, so mass is already at its practical minimum for that material and storm sits flat at 4.62 regardless of small gene tweaks; this pivots to PET-CF (never validly flown per the failure histogram) at genuine, not floor, stiffness margin with true stock sweep and moderate arm length, isoflew at 6.402 Wh/km
candidate b5073af9 — The rear-sweep-opening pivot failed prescreen because rear sweep 50deg (+14 past the 36deg stock reference) was paired with only 1.16/1.05 plate growth -- well under the ~0.1-per-5deg rule for a 14deg offset -- so this keeps the same storm-gust rear-separation idea but grows plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to 1.28/1.18 to keep the tongue bolts seated, lengthens the arm to 1.05 (rather than shflew at 6.688 Wh/km
candidate 98d59d77 — The wide-arm/narrow-waist storm-hardened build failed prescreen on rotor disk overlap because it stacked short arm_length_scale (0.85) with max width (1.15) and an aggressive waist cut (0.45) at narrow sweep, so this keeps the genuinely-wide, real-stiffness ASA arm concept but lengthens the arm to 1.1 for disk clearance, eases width/waist to 1.05/0.6, and holds both sweeps near stock so no plate-sinvalid — arm tip deflection (asa)
candidate 4cfaf3c3 — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — Every past sweep pivot opened front and rear together, conflating cruise-drag effects with storm-specific rotor wake interactions; this decouples them by holding front sweep at true stock (for calm/headwind/thin-air efficiency) while opening only the rear to 50deg for rear-rotor wake separation in storm gusts, at moderate (not floor) PA12-CF stiffness margin with plate scales grown proportionally
candidate d05b1992 — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — The elite arm cross-section is a uniform moderate width with moderate waist narrowing; no design has tested an hourglass shape -- a wide root for bolt/stiffness margin paired with an aggressively pinched mid-shaft waist for drag -- combined with a material tough enough (ASA) to carry it at genuine, non-floor margin, so this isolates that arm-shape axis at true stock sweep and zero wedge.

ecf9c2cbfabb

5.996 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.82
crosswind	3.68
gusty_light	3.54
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.60

e7bb72f4bb57

6.019 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.84
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.62

6a56f2c2924b

6.020 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.84
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.62

5c40b0eddf3d

6.021 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.84
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.62

c742abdca96a

6.027 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.85
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.63

3ad4a4869388

6.031 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.85
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.63

daa2eab07ed8

6.031 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.85
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.63

f174ca0454ae

6.032 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.85
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.63

5119b060a79a

6.044 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.86
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.57
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.64

dcc508925b58

6.059 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.19
cold_headwind	3.87
crosswind	3.72
gusty_light	3.57
hot_thin	3.40
storm	4.65

a5369ef63a76

6.074 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.20
cold_headwind	3.88
crosswind	3.73
gusty_light	3.58
hot_thin	3.41
storm	4.66

f20c9e3f6a79

6.093 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.20
cold_headwind	3.90
crosswind	3.74
gusty_light	3.59
hot_thin	3.42
storm	4.68

83c3edff6103

6.402 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.35
cold_headwind	4.11
crosswind	3.94
gusty_light	3.77
hot_thin	3.58
storm	4.92

b5073af91061

6.688 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.51
cold_headwind	4.29
crosswind	4.11
gusty_light	3.93
hot_thin	3.74
storm	5.14

7e7c896afe6e

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pet_cf)

calm_warm	3.21
cold_headwind	3.89
crosswind	3.74
gusty_light	3.60
hot_thin	3.43
storm	4.68

98d59d775c85

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (asa)

calm_warm	3.32
cold_headwind	4.14
crosswind	3.94
gusty_light	3.75
hot_thin	3.54
storm	4.90

generation 48

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 3 design(s) injected, 1 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	6
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	2
pivot crosses (far parent)	4
random immigrants	1

mutation σ 0.042 of gene range
pivot σ 0.067 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 48 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.55..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.4..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.0025..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.5..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257, g21 6.257, g22 6.172, g23 6.165, g24 6.144, g25 6.144, g26 6.144, g27 6.144, g28 6.144, g29 6.144, g30 6.144, g31 6.144, g32 6.144, g33 6.144, g34 6.144, g35 6.144, g36 6.113, g37 6.113, g38 6.113, g39 6.051, g40 6.048, g41 6.045, g42 6.038, g43 6.035, g44 6.027, g45 6.023, g46 6.023, g47 6.020 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 8 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.020 Wh/km-agg, frame 68 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7985, "arm_width_scale": 0.8226, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5633, "arm_thickness": 0.0043, "front_sweep_deg": 35.3689, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.5426, "plate_length_scale": 0.9726, "plate_width_scale": 1.0087, "deck_gap": 0.0391, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2299, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8775, "material": 0.2424} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.17, "cold_headwind": 3.84, "crosswind": 3.7, "gusty_light": 3.55, "hot_thin": 3.38, "storm": 4.62}
fitness 6.023 Wh/km-agg, frame 69 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8003, "arm_width_scale": 0.826, "arm_waist_scale": 0.563, "arm_thickness": 0.0043, "front_sweep_deg": 35.3273, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.4729, "plate_length_scale": 1.0361, "plate_width_scale": 1.0081, "deck_gap": 0.0391, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.1082, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8541, "material": 0.2712} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.17, "cold_headwind": 3.84, "crosswind": 3.7, "gusty_light": 3.55, "hot_thin": 3.38, "storm": 4.62}
fitness 6.023 Wh/km-agg, frame 69 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7985, "arm_width_scale": 0.8226, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5633, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 35.3689, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.5426, "plate_length_scale": 1.0317, "plate_width_scale": 1.0087, "deck_gap": 0.0391, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2299, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8611, "material": 0.2813} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.17, "cold_headwind": 3.84, "crosswind": 3.7, "gusty_light": 3.55, "hot_thin": 3.38, "storm": 4.62}
fitness 6.024 Wh/km-agg, frame 69 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7984, "arm_width_scale": 0.8182, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5634, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 35.4471, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.2517, "plate_length_scale": 1.0318, "plate_width_scale": 1.0083, "deck_gap": 0.0391, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2756, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8633, "material": 0.2811} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.17, "cold_headwind": 3.84, "crosswind": 3.7, "gusty_light": 3.55, "hot_thin": 3.38, "storm": 4.62}
fitness 6.026 Wh/km-agg, frame 68 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7828, "arm_width_scale": 0.8228, "arm_waist_scale": 0.6012, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 36.455, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.9381, "plate_length_scale": 1.0379, "plate_width_scale": 1.0205, "deck_gap": 0.0384, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8326, "material": 0.2598} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.17, "cold_headwind": 3.85, "crosswind": 3.7, "gusty_light": 3.55, "hot_thin": 3.38, "storm": 4.63}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g34 `6d24a438` fitness 6.243 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior long-arm pivot kept the elite's off-stock 36/42 sweep and lost to the added mass/moment penalty; this instead pairs a moderate arm-length increase (1.15, for lower disk loading) with the true stock sweep (31.4/36) rather than the elite's swept-forward geometry, keeping width/waist/thickness and plate scale at the floor-mass carbon baseline to test whether stock sweep removes the tongue
- g34 `c76d7cce` fitness 6.814 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past pivot pushed a lever to its floor or its extreme (min-mass elite vs. maxed-out width/waist/thickness/wedge attempts) and all the extremes lost, but a uniformly moderate build across arm length, width, waist, thickness, plate margin and wedge has never been tested as a combination -- this isolates whether real-but-restrained margin on every axis at once (rather than one axis pushed hard)
- g36 `ca88346c` fitness 6.113 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past printed-material pivot bundled the switch with heavy over-compensation (max thickness, relaxed waist/width) and lost to the mass penalty, or with long arms; this instead pairs PA12-CF (material 0.25) with the elite's exact floor-mass short-arm geometry and only the minimum thickness/width/waist margin needed to clear the pa12_cf deflection floor and the 1.6 mm plate-web requirement, iso
- g39 `949d4213` fitness 6.195 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past max-deck_gap or minimum-arm-width test was confounded with battery wedge, long arms, or full waist relaxation; this pushes arm_width_scale to its absolute floor (0.75, maximum root drag/mass cut) with a compensating waist bump for tip stiffness and pairs it with max deck_gap (0.045) for unobstructed prop wash under the deck -- a joint minimum-frontal-arm-section plus max-clearance combo
- g39 `a07db56c` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: The only material pivot that has ever matched the elite (PA12-CF at the exact floor-mass short-arm geometry, g36 ca88346c, 6.113) has never been repeated with ASA -- every ASA test so far bundled it with long arms, max wedge, or heavy over-reinforcement and lost badly (6.68-7.39); this isolates ASA at the identical proven floor-mass geometry with only the minimal arm-thickness and plate-thickness 
- g39 `ba333594` fitness 6.195 Wh/km-agg — was: Retry the decoupled-rear-sweep widening (front held at 36 near-stock, rear now only +3 deg past the validated 42-deg elite rather than +4 past it, at 46) with plate_length_scale and plate_width_scale both raised well past the elite's 1.03 baseline (to 1.15) so the tongue bolts stay clear of the main plate edge this time.
- g42 `95e92047` fitness 6.104 Wh/km-agg — was: The pa12_cf elite family only won by being lighter than carbon at a thickness margin forced up to the printed-material 0.8 floor, but carbon plate has no such floor and is stiffer per unit thickness, so this switches to carbon (material 0.08) at the identical elite geometry while cutting plate_thickness_scale to 0.62 and arm_thickness to 0.0038 to test whether carbon's higher stiffness lets it und
- g42 `dbcbc551` fitness 6.048 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past arm_waist change was bundled with width/thickness bumps for stiffness or with wedge/long-arm pivots and lost, so this isolates a genuine further mid-shaft narrowing (0.58->0.48) at the exact elite floor-mass geometry, with only a minimal thickness bump (0.0042->0.0046) to cover the pa12_cf deflection floor, to test whether mid-arm drag cut alone pays off without a confounding lever.
- g42 `ef635239` fitness 6.038 Wh/km-agg — was: Same PA12-CF short-arm/36-42-sweep design as the failed attempt, but restore plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to the validated ~1.03/1.02 elite range instead of shrinking them to 0.97/0.96, since the failure was a too-thin main-plate web from under-scaled plates, not the arm or material genes.
- g43 `2870779c` fitness 6.243 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior long-arm pivot paired the lower disk loading with either a printed-material thickness floor or extra width/waist stiffness margin and lost to the combined mass tax, but carbon's superior stiffness-per-mass has never been paired with genuinely long arms and truly minimal thickness/plate mass, testing whether it lets long arms finally pay off.
- g43 `52d0f02a` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Every past max-wedge test held sweep near stock and every open-rear-sweep test used minimal-margin materials, so this stacks max battery wedge (frontal-area cut) with a genuinely opened rear sweep (prop-wash separation for storm gusts) and tough ASA with real plate stiffness, none of which has been combined before.
- g43 `b060e8d5` INVALID (arm resonance with rotor 1P) — was: Every past stiffness pivot bundled width AND thickness increases together, conflating frontal-drag-adding width with drag-neutral through-thickness bending stiffness, so this isolates a thin-narrow-but-maximally-thick carbon arm cross-section (min width, low waist, max thickness) to test whether out-of-plane stiffness alone -- without added frontal profile -- cracks the storm plateau.
- g44 `044e1644` fitness 6.671 Wh/km-agg — was: The plateau is built entirely on floor-mass PA12-CF short arms (0.79-0.81) with minimal stiffness margin -- storm is stuck at 4.63-4.64 across every elite variant, so this pivots to carbon (no printed-material thickness floor) with genuinely long arms (1.22, lower disk loading and more prop-wash separation) plus real width/waist/thickness stiffness margin and a moderate 8deg wedge, at the proven-s
- g44 `5bc6b43e` fitness 6.867 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past stiffness pivot either isolated one axis (thickness alone failed on arm resonance) or bundled stiffness with a mass-cutting confound and lost; this abandons mass optimization entirely for a storm-hardened build -- wide arms (1.1), minimal waist narrowing (1.1), thick shafts (0.0075) and thick ASA plates (1.1x) at stock geometry and zero wedge -- to test whether committing real structura
- g44 `72423ad9` fitness 6.613 Wh/km-agg — was: Max battery wedge has only ever been tested with short printed-material arms or bundled with sweep changes that broke tongue geometry; this instead pairs carbon (dodging the printed-material floor to keep mass low) with a genuinely narrow arm cross-section (0.6 width, real drag cut) and a longer arm (1.1) at the untouched stock sweep, stacking frontal-area reduction from both the wedge and the arm
- g45 `052b89f9` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: PETG has never been validly flown (every prior attempt used a different tough material or insufficient stiffness margin and hit arm tip deflection), and max battery wedge has never been paired with a genuinely reinforced arm cross-section at safe stock geometry; this isolates full 15deg wedge frontal-area cut with PETG at true stock sweep/plate scale, thick arm shafts and above-floor plate thickne
- g45 `a8588e06` fitness 6.588 Wh/km-agg — was: Every decoupled-sweep pivot so far only opened the rear for prop-wash separation; this instead widens only the front sweep (for better front-rotor separation against gusts/crosswind) while holding rear near stock, pairs it with carbon so plate/arm mass stays low despite the much larger plate growth (1.25/1.18, well beyond the 1.13/1.12 that already failed on tongue bolts at a smaller sweep offset)
- g45 `f7d5fe1f` fitness 6.812 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite is built on floor-mass PA12-CF short arms with zero battery wedge, and storm is stuck at 4.63-4.64 across the entire family; this abandons that trait entirely for carbon (no printed-material thickness floor) at true stock sweep/plate scale with real width/waist/thickness stiffness margin, generous deck_gap for wedge clearance, and a moderate 10deg wedge to finally cut frontal area on a
- g47 `30ebf347` INVALID (arm tip deflection (asa)) — was: Every ASA/PETG attempt used minimal stiffness margin at floor mass and failed on arm-tip deflection before the aero benefit could even be assessed, and every max-wedge test bundled it with long arms or narrow sweep changes; this isolates the full 15deg wedge frontal-area cut on ASA at moderate stock-ish geometry with genuine (not floor) width/thickness margin so the material can actually survive t
- g47 `ba60c54f` fitness 7.180 Wh/km-agg — was: Every long-arm pivot so far paired moderate arm length with either extra stiffness overhead or a wedge confound and lost; this pushes arm length near its max for genuinely low disk loading, opens both sweeps for real rotor separation against storm gusts, and uses carbon (no printed-material thickness floor) with proportionally grown plates so the swept tongue bolts stay seated.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 17, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 34, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 17, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 38, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 27, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 17, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 8, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.01 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.20 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.60 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.19 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.15 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.52 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pla_plus)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 8 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 PIVOTAL designs that abandon that trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space. Do NOT refine the elites — a pivot that lands near them is a wasted round. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 79ec1e75 — The entire elite family is floor-mass PA12-CF at short arms with minimal stiffness margin and storm is stuck at 4.62-4.64 across all of them; this abandons that trait for carbon (no printed-material thickness floor) at genuinely long arms with real width/thickness stiffness margin instead of a thickness-floor minimum, and holds sweep close to stock with zero wedge so long-arm disk-loading reductioflew at 7.265 Wh/km
candidate b799a97f — Full battery wedge for frontal-area cut has only ever been validly flown on floor-margin printed materials that then failed arm tip deflection, or bundled with long arms/sweep changes; this pairs the full 15 deg wedge with carbon (dodging the printed-material thickness floor) and genuine, not minimal, arm/plate stiffness margin at near-stock sweep so the frame can actually survive long enough to tflew at 6.936 Wh/km
candidate f947db57 — Same wide-arm/thick-shaft storm-hardened carbon build as the failed attempt, but with reduced sweep offsets (38/45 instead of 41/49) and correspondingly larger plate scales (1.2/1.18 instead of 1.15/1.15) so the swept tongue bolts stay seated on the main plate per the offset-to-plate-growth coupling.flew at 6.605 Wh/km
candidate 003d1216 — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — Past decoupled-sweep pivots only ever opened one side while holding the other near stock; this opens both front and rear sweep well past stock together for genuine rotor-wash separation against storm gusts, grows the plates enough (1.15/1.15, beyond the ~0.1-per-5deg rule) to keep the tongue bolts seated at this much larger offset, and uses carbon plus a narrow low-waist arm cross-section to avoid

e7bb72f4bb57

6.019 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.84
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.62

6a56f2c2924b

6.020 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.84
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.62

6f725a3a0f9c

6.020 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.84
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.62

8a8504d81e28

6.023 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.84
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.62

904776bc89c7

6.024 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.84
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.62

c742abdca96a

6.027 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.85
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.63

de39ec574757

6.028 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.85
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.63

d8016daa4875

6.028 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.85
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.63

61844712d53e

6.035 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.86
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.63

a5369ef63a76

6.074 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.20
cold_headwind	3.88
crosswind	3.73
gusty_light	3.58
hot_thin	3.41
storm	4.66

f947db579640

6.605 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.47
cold_headwind	4.22
crosswind	4.07
gusty_light	3.89
hot_thin	3.70
storm	5.07

b799a97f0f2e

6.936 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.65
cold_headwind	4.45
crosswind	4.27
gusty_light	4.08
hot_thin	3.88
storm	5.32

16000fb02854

7.103 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.71
cold_headwind	4.63
crosswind	4.36
gusty_light	4.16
hot_thin	3.94
storm	5.46

79ec1e75661b

7.265 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.78
cold_headwind	4.71
crosswind	4.46
gusty_light	4.25
hot_thin	4.03
storm	5.59

700988c2c55e

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.83
crosswind	3.69
gusty_light	3.54
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.61

159ef4d9df74

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.81
crosswind	3.67
gusty_light	3.53
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.58

generation 47

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 2 design(s) injected, 2 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	6
claude-designed	2
crossovers (tournament parents)	2
mutants (single parent)	2
pivot crosses (far parent)	4

mutation σ 0.043 of gene range
pivot σ 0.069 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 47 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.55..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.4..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.0025..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.5..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257, g21 6.257, g22 6.172, g23 6.165, g24 6.144, g25 6.144, g26 6.144, g27 6.144, g28 6.144, g29 6.144, g30 6.144, g31 6.144, g32 6.144, g33 6.144, g34 6.144, g35 6.144, g36 6.113, g37 6.113, g38 6.113, g39 6.051, g40 6.048, g41 6.045, g42 6.038, g43 6.035, g44 6.027, g45 6.023, g46 6.023 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 7 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.023 Wh/km-agg, frame 69 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8003, "arm_width_scale": 0.826, "arm_waist_scale": 0.563, "arm_thickness": 0.0043, "front_sweep_deg": 35.3273, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.4729, "plate_length_scale": 1.0361, "plate_width_scale": 1.0081, "deck_gap": 0.0391, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.1082, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8541, "material": 0.2712} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.17, "cold_headwind": 3.84, "crosswind": 3.7, "gusty_light": 3.55, "hot_thin": 3.38, "storm": 4.62}
fitness 6.023 Wh/km-agg, frame 69 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7985, "arm_width_scale": 0.8226, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5633, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 35.3689, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.5426, "plate_length_scale": 1.0317, "plate_width_scale": 1.0087, "deck_gap": 0.0391, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2299, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8611, "material": 0.2813} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.17, "cold_headwind": 3.84, "crosswind": 3.7, "gusty_light": 3.55, "hot_thin": 3.38, "storm": 4.62}
fitness 6.024 Wh/km-agg, frame 69 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7984, "arm_width_scale": 0.8182, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5634, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 35.4471, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.2517, "plate_length_scale": 1.0318, "plate_width_scale": 1.0083, "deck_gap": 0.0391, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2756, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8633, "material": 0.2811} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.17, "cold_headwind": 3.84, "crosswind": 3.7, "gusty_light": 3.55, "hot_thin": 3.38, "storm": 4.62}
fitness 6.027 Wh/km-agg, frame 68 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7829, "arm_width_scale": 0.8228, "arm_waist_scale": 0.6012, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 36.455, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.917, "plate_length_scale": 1.0379, "plate_width_scale": 1.0205, "deck_gap": 0.0385, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8326, "material": 0.2598} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.17, "cold_headwind": 3.85, "crosswind": 3.7, "gusty_light": 3.55, "hot_thin": 3.38, "storm": 4.63}
fitness 6.028 Wh/km-agg, frame 69 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7923, "arm_width_scale": 0.8297, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5855, "arm_thickness": 0.0043, "front_sweep_deg": 35.5637, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.8801, "plate_length_scale": 1.0307, "plate_width_scale": 1.0167, "deck_gap": 0.0373, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.5832, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8528, "material": 0.2755} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.17, "cold_headwind": 3.85, "crosswind": 3.71, "gusty_light": 3.56, "hot_thin": 3.38, "storm": 4.62}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g33 `ad807299` fitness 6.183 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate a moderate battery wedge alone on the exact validated elite geometry with a touch more deck_gap for wedge clearance — every prior wedge test bundled it with long arms or extra plate thickness, so this checks whether frontal-area reduction pays off on its own without that compounded mass cost.
- g34 `32e907f6` fitness 6.441 Wh/km-agg — was: Every symmetric wide-sweep pivot has failed either on tongue-bolt geometry or fitness, but decoupled front/rear sweep has never been tried; this keeps the front tight near true stock (32 deg, avoiding frontal-area cost) while opening only the rear sweep (48 deg) for better rear-rotor separation, with generous plate growth (1.28/1.20, well beyond the 1.15/1.13 that previously still failed at 42/48)
- g34 `6d24a438` fitness 6.243 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior long-arm pivot kept the elite's off-stock 36/42 sweep and lost to the added mass/moment penalty; this instead pairs a moderate arm-length increase (1.15, for lower disk loading) with the true stock sweep (31.4/36) rather than the elite's swept-forward geometry, keeping width/waist/thickness and plate scale at the floor-mass carbon baseline to test whether stock sweep removes the tongue
- g34 `c76d7cce` fitness 6.814 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past pivot pushed a lever to its floor or its extreme (min-mass elite vs. maxed-out width/waist/thickness/wedge attempts) and all the extremes lost, but a uniformly moderate build across arm length, width, waist, thickness, plate margin and wedge has never been tested as a combination -- this isolates whether real-but-restrained margin on every axis at once (rather than one axis pushed hard)
- g36 `ca88346c` fitness 6.113 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past printed-material pivot bundled the switch with heavy over-compensation (max thickness, relaxed waist/width) and lost to the mass penalty, or with long arms; this instead pairs PA12-CF (material 0.25) with the elite's exact floor-mass short-arm geometry and only the minimum thickness/width/waist margin needed to clear the pa12_cf deflection floor and the 1.6 mm plate-web requirement, iso
- g39 `949d4213` fitness 6.195 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past max-deck_gap or minimum-arm-width test was confounded with battery wedge, long arms, or full waist relaxation; this pushes arm_width_scale to its absolute floor (0.75, maximum root drag/mass cut) with a compensating waist bump for tip stiffness and pairs it with max deck_gap (0.045) for unobstructed prop wash under the deck -- a joint minimum-frontal-arm-section plus max-clearance combo
- g39 `a07db56c` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: The only material pivot that has ever matched the elite (PA12-CF at the exact floor-mass short-arm geometry, g36 ca88346c, 6.113) has never been repeated with ASA -- every ASA test so far bundled it with long arms, max wedge, or heavy over-reinforcement and lost badly (6.68-7.39); this isolates ASA at the identical proven floor-mass geometry with only the minimal arm-thickness and plate-thickness 
- g39 `ba333594` fitness 6.195 Wh/km-agg — was: Retry the decoupled-rear-sweep widening (front held at 36 near-stock, rear now only +3 deg past the validated 42-deg elite rather than +4 past it, at 46) with plate_length_scale and plate_width_scale both raised well past the elite's 1.03 baseline (to 1.15) so the tongue bolts stay clear of the main plate edge this time.
- g42 `95e92047` fitness 6.104 Wh/km-agg — was: The pa12_cf elite family only won by being lighter than carbon at a thickness margin forced up to the printed-material 0.8 floor, but carbon plate has no such floor and is stiffer per unit thickness, so this switches to carbon (material 0.08) at the identical elite geometry while cutting plate_thickness_scale to 0.62 and arm_thickness to 0.0038 to test whether carbon's higher stiffness lets it und
- g42 `dbcbc551` fitness 6.048 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past arm_waist change was bundled with width/thickness bumps for stiffness or with wedge/long-arm pivots and lost, so this isolates a genuine further mid-shaft narrowing (0.58->0.48) at the exact elite floor-mass geometry, with only a minimal thickness bump (0.0042->0.0046) to cover the pa12_cf deflection floor, to test whether mid-arm drag cut alone pays off without a confounding lever.
- g42 `ef635239` fitness 6.038 Wh/km-agg — was: Same PA12-CF short-arm/36-42-sweep design as the failed attempt, but restore plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to the validated ~1.03/1.02 elite range instead of shrinking them to 0.97/0.96, since the failure was a too-thin main-plate web from under-scaled plates, not the arm or material genes.
- g43 `2870779c` fitness 6.243 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior long-arm pivot paired the lower disk loading with either a printed-material thickness floor or extra width/waist stiffness margin and lost to the combined mass tax, but carbon's superior stiffness-per-mass has never been paired with genuinely long arms and truly minimal thickness/plate mass, testing whether it lets long arms finally pay off.
- g43 `52d0f02a` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Every past max-wedge test held sweep near stock and every open-rear-sweep test used minimal-margin materials, so this stacks max battery wedge (frontal-area cut) with a genuinely opened rear sweep (prop-wash separation for storm gusts) and tough ASA with real plate stiffness, none of which has been combined before.
- g43 `b060e8d5` INVALID (arm resonance with rotor 1P) — was: Every past stiffness pivot bundled width AND thickness increases together, conflating frontal-drag-adding width with drag-neutral through-thickness bending stiffness, so this isolates a thin-narrow-but-maximally-thick carbon arm cross-section (min width, low waist, max thickness) to test whether out-of-plane stiffness alone -- without added frontal profile -- cracks the storm plateau.
- g44 `044e1644` fitness 6.671 Wh/km-agg — was: The plateau is built entirely on floor-mass PA12-CF short arms (0.79-0.81) with minimal stiffness margin -- storm is stuck at 4.63-4.64 across every elite variant, so this pivots to carbon (no printed-material thickness floor) with genuinely long arms (1.22, lower disk loading and more prop-wash separation) plus real width/waist/thickness stiffness margin and a moderate 8deg wedge, at the proven-s
- g44 `5bc6b43e` fitness 6.867 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past stiffness pivot either isolated one axis (thickness alone failed on arm resonance) or bundled stiffness with a mass-cutting confound and lost; this abandons mass optimization entirely for a storm-hardened build -- wide arms (1.1), minimal waist narrowing (1.1), thick shafts (0.0075) and thick ASA plates (1.1x) at stock geometry and zero wedge -- to test whether committing real structura
- g44 `72423ad9` fitness 6.613 Wh/km-agg — was: Max battery wedge has only ever been tested with short printed-material arms or bundled with sweep changes that broke tongue geometry; this instead pairs carbon (dodging the printed-material floor to keep mass low) with a genuinely narrow arm cross-section (0.6 width, real drag cut) and a longer arm (1.1) at the untouched stock sweep, stacking frontal-area reduction from both the wedge and the arm
- g45 `052b89f9` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: PETG has never been validly flown (every prior attempt used a different tough material or insufficient stiffness margin and hit arm tip deflection), and max battery wedge has never been paired with a genuinely reinforced arm cross-section at safe stock geometry; this isolates full 15deg wedge frontal-area cut with PETG at true stock sweep/plate scale, thick arm shafts and above-floor plate thickne
- g45 `a8588e06` fitness 6.588 Wh/km-agg — was: Every decoupled-sweep pivot so far only opened the rear for prop-wash separation; this instead widens only the front sweep (for better front-rotor separation against gusts/crosswind) while holding rear near stock, pairs it with carbon so plate/arm mass stays low despite the much larger plate growth (1.25/1.18, well beyond the 1.13/1.12 that already failed on tongue bolts at a smaller sweep offset)
- g45 `f7d5fe1f` fitness 6.812 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite is built on floor-mass PA12-CF short arms with zero battery wedge, and storm is stuck at 4.63-4.64 across the entire family; this abandons that trait entirely for carbon (no printed-material thickness floor) at true stock sweep/plate scale with real width/waist/thickness stiffness margin, generous deck_gap for wedge clearance, and a moderate 10deg wedge to finally cut frontal area on a

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 17, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 34, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 17, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 38, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 27, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 15, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 8, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.01 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.20 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.60 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.19 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.15 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.52 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pla_plus)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 7 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 PIVOTAL designs that abandon that trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space. Do NOT refine the elites — a pivot that lands near them is a wasted round. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate ba60c54f — Every long-arm pivot so far paired moderate arm length with either extra stiffness overhead or a wedge confound and lost; this pushes arm length near its max for genuinely low disk loading, opens both sweeps for real rotor separation against storm gusts, and uses carbon (no printed-material thickness floor) with proportionally grown plates so the swept tongue bolts stay seated.flew at 7.180 Wh/km
candidate 30ebf347 — Every ASA/PETG attempt used minimal stiffness margin at floor mass and failed on arm-tip deflection before the aero benefit could even be assessed, and every max-wedge test bundled it with long arms or narrow sweep changes; this isolates the full 15deg wedge frontal-area cut on ASA at moderate stock-ish geometry with genuine (not floor) width/thickness margin so the material can actually survive tinvalid — arm tip deflection (asa)
candidate c8bebb8e — rejected pre-flight (plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)) — Every elite narrows the arm waist hard (~0.56) for mid-shaft drag cut with stiffness held at the ends; this instead goes to floor arm length with an even narrower width but an inverted, nearly-uncinched waist (stiffness distributed through the mid-shaft rather than tapered) on PET-CF, a printed material never tested at this floor-mass short-arm geometry.
candidate 31a3e06a — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Same pivot intent (floor-width, waist-stiffened arm paired with pet_cf near stock sweep) but with plate_length/width_scale raised from 0.97 to 1.05/1.04 so the pinned FC-stack holes leave a thick-enough main-plate web this time, since 0.97 crushed it to 1.43 mm against the 1.90 mm stock target.

6a56f2c2924b

6.020 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.84
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.62

8a8504d81e28

6.023 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.84
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.62

71bd5aa15020

6.023 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.84
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.62

904776bc89c7

6.024 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.84
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.62

1ba606180432

6.026 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.85
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.63

c742abdca96a

6.027 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.85
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.63

61844712d53e

6.035 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.86
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.63

d4e1af91bfb9

6.035 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.86
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.63

b52d9f62ec39

6.043 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.86
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.64

a5369ef63a76

6.074 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.20
cold_headwind	3.88
crosswind	3.73
gusty_light	3.58
hot_thin	3.41
storm	4.66

74a1fc907eab

6.125 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.22
cold_headwind	3.91
crosswind	3.77
gusty_light	3.61
hot_thin	3.44
storm	4.70

a8ef7af2945a

6.615 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.49
cold_headwind	4.23
crosswind	4.07
gusty_light	3.89
hot_thin	3.72
storm	5.07

ba60c54f7292

7.180 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.73
cold_headwind	4.68
crosswind	4.40
gusty_light	4.20
hot_thin	3.98
storm	5.52

a5cf497225ba

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.86
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.63

ad6e446454be

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.85
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.63

30ebf3478949

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (asa)

calm_warm	3.35
cold_headwind	4.15
crosswind	3.94
gusty_light	3.76
hot_thin	3.56
storm	4.91

generation 46

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 0 design(s) injected, 6 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	6
pivot crosses (far parent)	6
random immigrants	1

mutation σ 0.044 of gene range
pivot σ 0.071 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 46 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.55..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.4..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.0025..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.5..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257, g21 6.257, g22 6.172, g23 6.165, g24 6.144, g25 6.144, g26 6.144, g27 6.144, g28 6.144, g29 6.144, g30 6.144, g31 6.144, g32 6.144, g33 6.144, g34 6.144, g35 6.144, g36 6.113, g37 6.113, g38 6.113, g39 6.051, g40 6.048, g41 6.045, g42 6.038, g43 6.035, g44 6.027, g45 6.023 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 6 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.023 Wh/km-agg, frame 69 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7985, "arm_width_scale": 0.8226, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5633, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 35.3689, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.5426, "plate_length_scale": 1.0317, "plate_width_scale": 1.0087, "deck_gap": 0.0391, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.2299, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8611, "material": 0.2813} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.17, "cold_headwind": 3.84, "crosswind": 3.7, "gusty_light": 3.55, "hot_thin": 3.38, "storm": 4.62}
fitness 6.027 Wh/km-agg, frame 68 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7829, "arm_width_scale": 0.8228, "arm_waist_scale": 0.6012, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 36.455, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.917, "plate_length_scale": 1.0379, "plate_width_scale": 1.0205, "deck_gap": 0.0385, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8326, "material": 0.2598} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.17, "cold_headwind": 3.85, "crosswind": 3.7, "gusty_light": 3.55, "hot_thin": 3.38, "storm": 4.63}
fitness 6.028 Wh/km-agg, frame 69 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7923, "arm_width_scale": 0.8297, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5855, "arm_thickness": 0.0043, "front_sweep_deg": 35.5999, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.8599, "plate_length_scale": 1.0306, "plate_width_scale": 1.0167, "deck_gap": 0.0373, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.5834, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8528, "material": 0.2755} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.17, "cold_headwind": 3.85, "crosswind": 3.71, "gusty_light": 3.56, "hot_thin": 3.38, "storm": 4.63}
fitness 6.035 Wh/km-agg, frame 69 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7995, "arm_width_scale": 0.8227, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5647, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 35.8605, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.5665, "plate_length_scale": 1.0361, "plate_width_scale": 1.0074, "deck_gap": 0.039, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0738, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8608, "material": 0.2709} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.17, "cold_headwind": 3.86, "crosswind": 3.71, "gusty_light": 3.56, "hot_thin": 3.38, "storm": 4.63}
fitness 6.035 Wh/km-agg, frame 69 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8084, "arm_width_scale": 0.8229, "arm_waist_scale": 0.6014, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 36.4362, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.9242, "plate_length_scale": 1.0305, "plate_width_scale": 1.0169, "deck_gap": 0.0386, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8388, "material": 0.249} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.17, "cold_headwind": 3.86, "crosswind": 3.71, "gusty_light": 3.56, "hot_thin": 3.38, "storm": 4.63}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g33 `ad807299` fitness 6.183 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate a moderate battery wedge alone on the exact validated elite geometry with a touch more deck_gap for wedge clearance — every prior wedge test bundled it with long arms or extra plate thickness, so this checks whether frontal-area reduction pays off on its own without that compounded mass cost.
- g34 `32e907f6` fitness 6.441 Wh/km-agg — was: Every symmetric wide-sweep pivot has failed either on tongue-bolt geometry or fitness, but decoupled front/rear sweep has never been tried; this keeps the front tight near true stock (32 deg, avoiding frontal-area cost) while opening only the rear sweep (48 deg) for better rear-rotor separation, with generous plate growth (1.28/1.20, well beyond the 1.15/1.13 that previously still failed at 42/48)
- g34 `6d24a438` fitness 6.243 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior long-arm pivot kept the elite's off-stock 36/42 sweep and lost to the added mass/moment penalty; this instead pairs a moderate arm-length increase (1.15, for lower disk loading) with the true stock sweep (31.4/36) rather than the elite's swept-forward geometry, keeping width/waist/thickness and plate scale at the floor-mass carbon baseline to test whether stock sweep removes the tongue
- g34 `c76d7cce` fitness 6.814 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past pivot pushed a lever to its floor or its extreme (min-mass elite vs. maxed-out width/waist/thickness/wedge attempts) and all the extremes lost, but a uniformly moderate build across arm length, width, waist, thickness, plate margin and wedge has never been tested as a combination -- this isolates whether real-but-restrained margin on every axis at once (rather than one axis pushed hard)
- g36 `ca88346c` fitness 6.113 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past printed-material pivot bundled the switch with heavy over-compensation (max thickness, relaxed waist/width) and lost to the mass penalty, or with long arms; this instead pairs PA12-CF (material 0.25) with the elite's exact floor-mass short-arm geometry and only the minimum thickness/width/waist margin needed to clear the pa12_cf deflection floor and the 1.6 mm plate-web requirement, iso
- g39 `949d4213` fitness 6.195 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past max-deck_gap or minimum-arm-width test was confounded with battery wedge, long arms, or full waist relaxation; this pushes arm_width_scale to its absolute floor (0.75, maximum root drag/mass cut) with a compensating waist bump for tip stiffness and pairs it with max deck_gap (0.045) for unobstructed prop wash under the deck -- a joint minimum-frontal-arm-section plus max-clearance combo
- g39 `a07db56c` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: The only material pivot that has ever matched the elite (PA12-CF at the exact floor-mass short-arm geometry, g36 ca88346c, 6.113) has never been repeated with ASA -- every ASA test so far bundled it with long arms, max wedge, or heavy over-reinforcement and lost badly (6.68-7.39); this isolates ASA at the identical proven floor-mass geometry with only the minimal arm-thickness and plate-thickness 
- g39 `ba333594` fitness 6.195 Wh/km-agg — was: Retry the decoupled-rear-sweep widening (front held at 36 near-stock, rear now only +3 deg past the validated 42-deg elite rather than +4 past it, at 46) with plate_length_scale and plate_width_scale both raised well past the elite's 1.03 baseline (to 1.15) so the tongue bolts stay clear of the main plate edge this time.
- g42 `95e92047` fitness 6.104 Wh/km-agg — was: The pa12_cf elite family only won by being lighter than carbon at a thickness margin forced up to the printed-material 0.8 floor, but carbon plate has no such floor and is stiffer per unit thickness, so this switches to carbon (material 0.08) at the identical elite geometry while cutting plate_thickness_scale to 0.62 and arm_thickness to 0.0038 to test whether carbon's higher stiffness lets it und
- g42 `dbcbc551` fitness 6.048 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past arm_waist change was bundled with width/thickness bumps for stiffness or with wedge/long-arm pivots and lost, so this isolates a genuine further mid-shaft narrowing (0.58->0.48) at the exact elite floor-mass geometry, with only a minimal thickness bump (0.0042->0.0046) to cover the pa12_cf deflection floor, to test whether mid-arm drag cut alone pays off without a confounding lever.
- g42 `ef635239` fitness 6.038 Wh/km-agg — was: Same PA12-CF short-arm/36-42-sweep design as the failed attempt, but restore plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to the validated ~1.03/1.02 elite range instead of shrinking them to 0.97/0.96, since the failure was a too-thin main-plate web from under-scaled plates, not the arm or material genes.
- g43 `2870779c` fitness 6.243 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior long-arm pivot paired the lower disk loading with either a printed-material thickness floor or extra width/waist stiffness margin and lost to the combined mass tax, but carbon's superior stiffness-per-mass has never been paired with genuinely long arms and truly minimal thickness/plate mass, testing whether it lets long arms finally pay off.
- g43 `52d0f02a` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Every past max-wedge test held sweep near stock and every open-rear-sweep test used minimal-margin materials, so this stacks max battery wedge (frontal-area cut) with a genuinely opened rear sweep (prop-wash separation for storm gusts) and tough ASA with real plate stiffness, none of which has been combined before.
- g43 `b060e8d5` INVALID (arm resonance with rotor 1P) — was: Every past stiffness pivot bundled width AND thickness increases together, conflating frontal-drag-adding width with drag-neutral through-thickness bending stiffness, so this isolates a thin-narrow-but-maximally-thick carbon arm cross-section (min width, low waist, max thickness) to test whether out-of-plane stiffness alone -- without added frontal profile -- cracks the storm plateau.
- g44 `044e1644` fitness 6.671 Wh/km-agg — was: The plateau is built entirely on floor-mass PA12-CF short arms (0.79-0.81) with minimal stiffness margin -- storm is stuck at 4.63-4.64 across every elite variant, so this pivots to carbon (no printed-material thickness floor) with genuinely long arms (1.22, lower disk loading and more prop-wash separation) plus real width/waist/thickness stiffness margin and a moderate 8deg wedge, at the proven-s
- g44 `5bc6b43e` fitness 6.867 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past stiffness pivot either isolated one axis (thickness alone failed on arm resonance) or bundled stiffness with a mass-cutting confound and lost; this abandons mass optimization entirely for a storm-hardened build -- wide arms (1.1), minimal waist narrowing (1.1), thick shafts (0.0075) and thick ASA plates (1.1x) at stock geometry and zero wedge -- to test whether committing real structura
- g44 `72423ad9` fitness 6.613 Wh/km-agg — was: Max battery wedge has only ever been tested with short printed-material arms or bundled with sweep changes that broke tongue geometry; this instead pairs carbon (dodging the printed-material floor to keep mass low) with a genuinely narrow arm cross-section (0.6 width, real drag cut) and a longer arm (1.1) at the untouched stock sweep, stacking frontal-area reduction from both the wedge and the arm
- g45 `052b89f9` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: PETG has never been validly flown (every prior attempt used a different tough material or insufficient stiffness margin and hit arm tip deflection), and max battery wedge has never been paired with a genuinely reinforced arm cross-section at safe stock geometry; this isolates full 15deg wedge frontal-area cut with PETG at true stock sweep/plate scale, thick arm shafts and above-floor plate thickne
- g45 `a8588e06` fitness 6.588 Wh/km-agg — was: Every decoupled-sweep pivot so far only opened the rear for prop-wash separation; this instead widens only the front sweep (for better front-rotor separation against gusts/crosswind) while holding rear near stock, pairs it with carbon so plate/arm mass stays low despite the much larger plate growth (1.25/1.18, well beyond the 1.13/1.12 that already failed on tongue bolts at a smaller sweep offset)
- g45 `f7d5fe1f` fitness 6.812 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite is built on floor-mass PA12-CF short arms with zero battery wedge, and storm is stuck at 4.63-4.64 across the entire family; this abandons that trait entirely for carbon (no printed-material thickness floor) at true stock sweep/plate scale with real width/waist/thickness stiffness margin, generous deck_gap for wedge clearance, and a moderate 10deg wedge to finally cut frontal area on a

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 17, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 34, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 17, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 38, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 27, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 14, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 8, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.01 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.20 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.60 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.19 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.15 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.52 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pla_plus)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 6 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 PIVOTAL designs that abandon that trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space. Do NOT refine the elites — a pivot that lands near them is a wasted round. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 907e09fd — rejected pre-flight (plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)) — Every pa12_cf elite sits at the forced 0.8 printed-material thickness floor while the one carbon variant tried (g42 95e92047, 6.104) only pushed plate_thickness_scale to 0.62 and kept the elite's 1.03/1.01 plate footprint -- this pushes carbon further along its own (unfloored) thickness axis and shrinks the plate footprint toward the 0.95 web-crush limit, since carbon needs neither the print floor
candidate 234bbc6b — rejected pre-flight (plates too thin for cf_plate (1.1 < 1.2 mm)) — Every long-arm pivot so far went to extreme arm_length_scale (1.1-1.22) and paid a heavy mass tax that lost badly; this instead tests a genuinely moderate disk-loading cut (1.00) at true stock sweep (avoiding tongue-bolt risk and extra plate growth) with carbon's unfloored thin plates, to see if a smaller, cheaper step toward lower disk loading can finally out-trade the short-arm floor-mass family
candidate bf7f3a61 — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — Decoupled rear-sweep widening for prop-wash separation has only ever been tested at a modest +3 deg past the elite (ba333594, 6.195) and always with a printed material paying the thickness-floor tax; this opens the rear sweep much further (50 deg, +14 past true stock) while holding front near stock, grows the plates enough to keep tongue bolts seated, and uses carbon to absorb that extra plate mas
candidate d4ea626f — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Every past pure-stiffness isolation either bundled thin/narrow arms with max thickness (triggering resonance) or paired real width/waist margin with long arms and wedge (mass tax); this isolates a moderate width/waist/thickness stiffness bump (0.90/0.85/0.0055) on carbon at near-stock short arms and stock-adjacent sweep (34/40, untouched plate scale) to test whether arm stiffness alone -- without
candidate 36efd92c — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Every past wedge+narrow-width combo paired it with longer arms or a printed-material mass floor and lost; this pairs max battery wedge (15deg, frontal-area cut) with a genuinely narrow arm (0.65 width) at the elite's floor-mass short-arm length and true stock sweep, using carbon with high waist retention (0.90) and a thicker shaft (0.006) to supply the stiffness margin narrow arms need without a m
candidate b4caee5e — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — The one prior asymmetric-sweep pivot that opened the rear sweep with adequately scaled plates (1.28/1.20) scored 6.441 but ran on a printed-mass-floor material; this repeats a properly scaled rear-only sweep opening (32/48, plate 1.22/1.15 per the +0.1-per-5-deg rule) on carbon instead, testing whether shedding the printed-material mass floor finally lets genuine rear-rotor separation pay off for

8a8504d81e28

6.023 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.84
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.62

71bd5aa15020

6.023 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.84
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.62

904776bc89c7

6.024 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.84
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.62

c742abdca96a

6.027 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.85
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.63

6a02fed62334

6.028 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.85
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.62

7a317ac952c1

6.034 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.86
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.63

6c8683b6fc49

6.035 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.86
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.63

61844712d53e

6.035 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.86
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.63

15b78cc30cfa

6.043 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.87
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.64

b52d9f62ec39

6.043 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.86
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.64

75905616a199

6.050 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.86
crosswind	3.72
gusty_light	3.57
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.64

fd2725122ea5

6.052 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.87
crosswind	3.72
gusty_light	3.57
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.64

02ce52b15dc2

6.558 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.45
cold_headwind	4.21
crosswind	4.03
gusty_light	3.86
hot_thin	3.67
storm	5.03

90659977d9fc

6.653 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.49
cold_headwind	4.28
crosswind	4.08
gusty_light	3.91
hot_thin	3.72
storm	5.11

b5875a4d1f70

6.936 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.65
cold_headwind	4.42
crosswind	4.26
gusty_light	4.08
hot_thin	3.89
storm	5.32

8fc464f12790

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.84
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.62

generation 45

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 3 design(s) injected, 3 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	4
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	3
pivot crosses (far parent)	5
random immigrants	1

mutation σ 0.046 of gene range
pivot σ 0.073 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 45 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.55..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.4..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.0025..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.5..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257, g21 6.257, g22 6.172, g23 6.165, g24 6.144, g25 6.144, g26 6.144, g27 6.144, g28 6.144, g29 6.144, g30 6.144, g31 6.144, g32 6.144, g33 6.144, g34 6.144, g35 6.144, g36 6.113, g37 6.113, g38 6.113, g39 6.051, g40 6.048, g41 6.045, g42 6.038, g43 6.035, g44 6.027 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 5 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.027 Wh/km-agg, frame 68 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7829, "arm_width_scale": 0.8228, "arm_waist_scale": 0.6012, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 36.455, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.917, "plate_length_scale": 1.0379, "plate_width_scale": 1.0205, "deck_gap": 0.0385, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8326, "material": 0.2598} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.17, "cold_headwind": 3.85, "crosswind": 3.7, "gusty_light": 3.55, "hot_thin": 3.38, "storm": 4.63}
fitness 6.035 Wh/km-agg, frame 69 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7995, "arm_width_scale": 0.8227, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5647, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 35.8605, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.5665, "plate_length_scale": 1.0361, "plate_width_scale": 1.0074, "deck_gap": 0.039, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0738, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8608, "material": 0.2709} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.17, "cold_headwind": 3.86, "crosswind": 3.71, "gusty_light": 3.56, "hot_thin": 3.38, "storm": 4.63}
fitness 6.035 Wh/km-agg, frame 69 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8084, "arm_width_scale": 0.8229, "arm_waist_scale": 0.6014, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 36.4362, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.9242, "plate_length_scale": 1.0305, "plate_width_scale": 1.0169, "deck_gap": 0.0386, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8388, "material": 0.249} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.17, "cold_headwind": 3.86, "crosswind": 3.71, "gusty_light": 3.56, "hot_thin": 3.38, "storm": 4.63}
fitness 6.038 Wh/km-agg, frame 69 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8001, "arm_width_scale": 0.8221, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5819, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 36.02, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.13, "plate_length_scale": 1.03, "plate_width_scale": 1.02, "deck_gap": 0.0395, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8613, "material": 0.25} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.17, "cold_headwind": 3.86, "crosswind": 3.71, "gusty_light": 3.56, "hot_thin": 3.39, "storm": 4.63}
fitness 6.038 Wh/km-agg, frame 69 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7998, "arm_width_scale": 0.8221, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5819, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 35.9326, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.1292, "plate_length_scale": 1.03, "plate_width_scale": 1.0193, "deck_gap": 0.0395, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8612, "material": 0.2506} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.17, "cold_headwind": 3.86, "crosswind": 3.71, "gusty_light": 3.56, "hot_thin": 3.39, "storm": 4.64}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g32 `e355e5e9` fitness 6.685 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior tough-material pivot (ASA/PA12-CF/PET-CF) has been tested at zero battery wedge and every wedge pivot has been tested only with long arms, so this combines a validated ASA build (material=0.9, thickness/waist/width well past prior tip-deflection failure points, plate_thickness_scale=1.0 margin) with max battery wedge and its validated clearance deck_gap, at the safe stock-adjacent 36/4
- g33 `17af4a9e` fitness 6.229 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past battery-wedge test bundled the frontal-area cut with longer arms or a material swap and lost to that confound; this applies max battery_wedge (15deg) with the wedge-clearance deck_gap (0.043) directly onto the otherwise-untouched elite floor-mass short-arm carbon baseline to finally isolate whether frontal-area reduction alone beats 6.144.
- g33 `569ca6a7` fitness 6.256 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate a modest (not extreme) arm-length increase alone at the exact validated elite baseline — every prior long-arm pivot jumped straight to 1.28-1.32 and lost to the mass/moment penalty, so this tests whether a mild disk-loading reduction (1.08, still well clear of tip-overlap since longer arms only add separation) pays off without that penalty.
- g33 `ad807299` fitness 6.183 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate a moderate battery wedge alone on the exact validated elite geometry with a touch more deck_gap for wedge clearance — every prior wedge test bundled it with long arms or extra plate thickness, so this checks whether frontal-area reduction pays off on its own without that compounded mass cost.
- g34 `32e907f6` fitness 6.441 Wh/km-agg — was: Every symmetric wide-sweep pivot has failed either on tongue-bolt geometry or fitness, but decoupled front/rear sweep has never been tried; this keeps the front tight near true stock (32 deg, avoiding frontal-area cost) while opening only the rear sweep (48 deg) for better rear-rotor separation, with generous plate growth (1.28/1.20, well beyond the 1.15/1.13 that previously still failed at 42/48)
- g34 `6d24a438` fitness 6.243 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior long-arm pivot kept the elite's off-stock 36/42 sweep and lost to the added mass/moment penalty; this instead pairs a moderate arm-length increase (1.15, for lower disk loading) with the true stock sweep (31.4/36) rather than the elite's swept-forward geometry, keeping width/waist/thickness and plate scale at the floor-mass carbon baseline to test whether stock sweep removes the tongue
- g34 `c76d7cce` fitness 6.814 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past pivot pushed a lever to its floor or its extreme (min-mass elite vs. maxed-out width/waist/thickness/wedge attempts) and all the extremes lost, but a uniformly moderate build across arm length, width, waist, thickness, plate margin and wedge has never been tested as a combination -- this isolates whether real-but-restrained margin on every axis at once (rather than one axis pushed hard)
- g36 `ca88346c` fitness 6.113 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past printed-material pivot bundled the switch with heavy over-compensation (max thickness, relaxed waist/width) and lost to the mass penalty, or with long arms; this instead pairs PA12-CF (material 0.25) with the elite's exact floor-mass short-arm geometry and only the minimum thickness/width/waist margin needed to clear the pa12_cf deflection floor and the 1.6 mm plate-web requirement, iso
- g39 `949d4213` fitness 6.195 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past max-deck_gap or minimum-arm-width test was confounded with battery wedge, long arms, or full waist relaxation; this pushes arm_width_scale to its absolute floor (0.75, maximum root drag/mass cut) with a compensating waist bump for tip stiffness and pairs it with max deck_gap (0.045) for unobstructed prop wash under the deck -- a joint minimum-frontal-arm-section plus max-clearance combo
- g39 `a07db56c` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: The only material pivot that has ever matched the elite (PA12-CF at the exact floor-mass short-arm geometry, g36 ca88346c, 6.113) has never been repeated with ASA -- every ASA test so far bundled it with long arms, max wedge, or heavy over-reinforcement and lost badly (6.68-7.39); this isolates ASA at the identical proven floor-mass geometry with only the minimal arm-thickness and plate-thickness 
- g39 `ba333594` fitness 6.195 Wh/km-agg — was: Retry the decoupled-rear-sweep widening (front held at 36 near-stock, rear now only +3 deg past the validated 42-deg elite rather than +4 past it, at 46) with plate_length_scale and plate_width_scale both raised well past the elite's 1.03 baseline (to 1.15) so the tongue bolts stay clear of the main plate edge this time.
- g42 `95e92047` fitness 6.104 Wh/km-agg — was: The pa12_cf elite family only won by being lighter than carbon at a thickness margin forced up to the printed-material 0.8 floor, but carbon plate has no such floor and is stiffer per unit thickness, so this switches to carbon (material 0.08) at the identical elite geometry while cutting plate_thickness_scale to 0.62 and arm_thickness to 0.0038 to test whether carbon's higher stiffness lets it und
- g42 `dbcbc551` fitness 6.048 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past arm_waist change was bundled with width/thickness bumps for stiffness or with wedge/long-arm pivots and lost, so this isolates a genuine further mid-shaft narrowing (0.58->0.48) at the exact elite floor-mass geometry, with only a minimal thickness bump (0.0042->0.0046) to cover the pa12_cf deflection floor, to test whether mid-arm drag cut alone pays off without a confounding lever.
- g42 `ef635239` fitness 6.038 Wh/km-agg — was: Same PA12-CF short-arm/36-42-sweep design as the failed attempt, but restore plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to the validated ~1.03/1.02 elite range instead of shrinking them to 0.97/0.96, since the failure was a too-thin main-plate web from under-scaled plates, not the arm or material genes.
- g43 `2870779c` fitness 6.243 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior long-arm pivot paired the lower disk loading with either a printed-material thickness floor or extra width/waist stiffness margin and lost to the combined mass tax, but carbon's superior stiffness-per-mass has never been paired with genuinely long arms and truly minimal thickness/plate mass, testing whether it lets long arms finally pay off.
- g43 `52d0f02a` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Every past max-wedge test held sweep near stock and every open-rear-sweep test used minimal-margin materials, so this stacks max battery wedge (frontal-area cut) with a genuinely opened rear sweep (prop-wash separation for storm gusts) and tough ASA with real plate stiffness, none of which has been combined before.
- g43 `b060e8d5` INVALID (arm resonance with rotor 1P) — was: Every past stiffness pivot bundled width AND thickness increases together, conflating frontal-drag-adding width with drag-neutral through-thickness bending stiffness, so this isolates a thin-narrow-but-maximally-thick carbon arm cross-section (min width, low waist, max thickness) to test whether out-of-plane stiffness alone -- without added frontal profile -- cracks the storm plateau.
- g44 `044e1644` fitness 6.671 Wh/km-agg — was: The plateau is built entirely on floor-mass PA12-CF short arms (0.79-0.81) with minimal stiffness margin -- storm is stuck at 4.63-4.64 across every elite variant, so this pivots to carbon (no printed-material thickness floor) with genuinely long arms (1.22, lower disk loading and more prop-wash separation) plus real width/waist/thickness stiffness margin and a moderate 8deg wedge, at the proven-s
- g44 `5bc6b43e` fitness 6.867 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past stiffness pivot either isolated one axis (thickness alone failed on arm resonance) or bundled stiffness with a mass-cutting confound and lost; this abandons mass optimization entirely for a storm-hardened build -- wide arms (1.1), minimal waist narrowing (1.1), thick shafts (0.0075) and thick ASA plates (1.1x) at stock geometry and zero wedge -- to test whether committing real structura
- g44 `72423ad9` fitness 6.613 Wh/km-agg — was: Max battery wedge has only ever been tested with short printed-material arms or bundled with sweep changes that broke tongue geometry; this instead pairs carbon (dodging the printed-material floor to keep mass low) with a genuinely narrow arm cross-section (0.6 width, real drag cut) and a longer arm (1.1) at the untouched stock sweep, stacking frontal-area reduction from both the wedge and the arm

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 17, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 34, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 17, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 38, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 27, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 12, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 7, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.01 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.20 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.60 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.19 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.15 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.52 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pla_plus)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 5 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 PIVOTAL designs that abandon that trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space. Do NOT refine the elites — a pivot that lands near them is a wasted round. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate f7d5fe1f — Every elite is built on floor-mass PA12-CF short arms with zero battery wedge, and storm is stuck at 4.63-4.64 across the entire family; this abandons that trait entirely for carbon (no printed-material thickness floor) at true stock sweep/plate scale with real width/waist/thickness stiffness margin, generous deck_gap for wedge clearance, and a moderate 10deg wedge to finally cut frontal area on aflew at 6.812 Wh/km
candidate 052b89f9 — PETG has never been validly flown (every prior attempt used a different tough material or insufficient stiffness margin and hit arm tip deflection), and max battery wedge has never been paired with a genuinely reinforced arm cross-section at safe stock geometry; this isolates full 15deg wedge frontal-area cut with PETG at true stock sweep/plate scale, thick arm shafts and above-floor plate thickneinvalid — arm tip deflection (petg)
candidate a8588e06 — Every decoupled-sweep pivot so far only opened the rear for prop-wash separation; this instead widens only the front sweep (for better front-rotor separation against gusts/crosswind) while holding rear near stock, pairs it with carbon so plate/arm mass stays low despite the much larger plate growth (1.25/1.18, well beyond the 1.13/1.12 that already failed on tongue bolts at a smaller sweep offset)flew at 6.588 Wh/km
candidate b808829c — rejected pre-flight (plates too thin for cf_plate (1.0 < 1.2 mm)) — Every carbon test so far only partially escaped PA12-CF's forced 0.8 thickness floor (stopping at plate=0.62/arm=0.0038, losing by 0.08), so this pushes plate_thickness_scale and arm_thickness all the way to their true carbon-enabled floor at the identical validated elite geometry, to see if the full stiffness-per-mass advantage finally overtakes the printed-material plateau -- since storm is batt
candidate 3c196d41 — rejected pre-flight (rotor too close to deck/battery) — Deck_gap has only ever been tested at its maximum (bundled with minimum arm width) or left at the elite's ~0.0385 -- reducing the standoff length alone, isolated on the exact validated elite geometry, cuts hardware mass through a completely untested lever rather than another arm/material/sweep tweak, while staying comfortably clear of both the FC-stack and rotor-clearance failure floors.
candidate 7ef85f8b — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — Every past rear-sweep-opening attempt (for better rear-rotor prop-wash separation) paid the plate-growth mass tax on top of PA12-CF's forced 0.8 thickness floor and lost; carbon has no such floor, so this pairs the same rear-sweep opening (+4.5 deg past the elite, held safely by growing plate_length/width to 1.13/1.12) with carbon at only a moderate thickness cut, isolating whether removing the pr

71bd5aa15020

6.023 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.84
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.62

c742abdca96a

6.027 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.85
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.63

3a5ff38e7add

6.028 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.85
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.63

61844712d53e

6.035 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.86
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.63

42b2f05c7846

6.035 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.86
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.63

09912b78b48a

6.038 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.86
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.63

3314bc28a30d

6.039 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.86
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.64

61b5e47c6d2c

6.043 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.86
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.64

518d114fa3e3

6.048 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.86
crosswind	3.72
gusty_light	3.57
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.64

5ae77919c0f2

6.052 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.87
crosswind	3.72
gusty_light	3.57
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.64

a8588e061d40

6.588 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.46
cold_headwind	4.22
crosswind	4.05
gusty_light	3.88
hot_thin	3.69
storm	5.06

f7d5fe1f41a0

6.812 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.58
cold_headwind	4.38
crosswind	4.19
gusty_light	4.00
hot_thin	3.81
storm	5.23

047b92eacccd

6.985 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.62
cold_headwind	4.58
crosswind	4.29
gusty_light	4.08
hot_thin	3.85
storm	5.37

ac0779e0c696

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.85
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.62

3f00d90609eb

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.82
crosswind	3.68
gusty_light	3.54
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.60

052b89f9a696

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (petg)

calm_warm	3.50
cold_headwind	4.34
crosswind	4.13
gusty_light	3.94
hot_thin	3.73
storm	5.14

generation 44

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 3 design(s) injected, 3 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	3
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	4
pivot crosses (far parent)	6

mutation σ 0.047 of gene range
pivot σ 0.075 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 44 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.55..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.4..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.0025..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.5..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257, g21 6.257, g22 6.172, g23 6.165, g24 6.144, g25 6.144, g26 6.144, g27 6.144, g28 6.144, g29 6.144, g30 6.144, g31 6.144, g32 6.144, g33 6.144, g34 6.144, g35 6.144, g36 6.113, g37 6.113, g38 6.113, g39 6.051, g40 6.048, g41 6.045, g42 6.038, g43 6.035 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 4 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.035 Wh/km-agg, frame 69 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8084, "arm_width_scale": 0.8229, "arm_waist_scale": 0.6014, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 36.4362, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.9242, "plate_length_scale": 1.0305, "plate_width_scale": 1.0169, "deck_gap": 0.0386, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8388, "material": 0.249} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.17, "cold_headwind": 3.86, "crosswind": 3.71, "gusty_light": 3.56, "hot_thin": 3.38, "storm": 4.63}
fitness 6.038 Wh/km-agg, frame 69 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8001, "arm_width_scale": 0.8221, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5819, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 36.02, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.13, "plate_length_scale": 1.03, "plate_width_scale": 1.02, "deck_gap": 0.0395, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8613, "material": 0.25} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.17, "cold_headwind": 3.86, "crosswind": 3.71, "gusty_light": 3.56, "hot_thin": 3.39, "storm": 4.63}
fitness 6.038 Wh/km-agg, frame 69 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8049, "arm_width_scale": 0.8231, "arm_waist_scale": 0.6014, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0674, "rear_sweep_deg": 41.9085, "plate_length_scale": 1.0295, "plate_width_scale": 1.0172, "deck_gap": 0.0395, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8624, "material": 0.249} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.18, "cold_headwind": 3.85, "crosswind": 3.71, "gusty_light": 3.56, "hot_thin": 3.39, "storm": 4.63}
fitness 6.042 Wh/km-agg, frame 69 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8001, "arm_width_scale": 0.8221, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5804, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0199, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.5784, "plate_length_scale": 1.0364, "plate_width_scale": 1.0086, "deck_gap": 0.0395, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8613, "material": 0.2707} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.17, "cold_headwind": 3.86, "crosswind": 3.71, "gusty_light": 3.56, "hot_thin": 3.39, "storm": 4.64}
fitness 6.043 Wh/km-agg, frame 69 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.7925, "arm_width_scale": 0.8246, "arm_waist_scale": 0.6013, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 36.2928, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.1169, "plate_length_scale": 1.0287, "plate_width_scale": 1.0222, "deck_gap": 0.0399, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8673, "material": 0.2288} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.17, "cold_headwind": 3.86, "crosswind": 3.71, "gusty_light": 3.56, "hot_thin": 3.39, "storm": 4.64}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g31 `8180dd97` fitness 6.302 Wh/km-agg — was: Every previous material pivot bolted heavy over-compensation (max thickness, relaxed waist, wider width) onto a material change and always lost to the mass penalty; this instead pairs PET-CF (material 0.40) with the elite's proven low-stress short-arm geometry and only minimal thickness/width/waist nudges above the printed-material validity floor, testing whether toughness alone -- without brute s
- g31 `cbb51c89` fitness 6.622 Wh/km-agg — was: Real structural stiffness margin (width+waist+thickness raised together) and battery-wedge frontal-area reduction have each been isolated separately and both lost to a single-axis mass penalty, but never combined at the proven short-arm/stock-sweep baseline; this pivot stacks a genuine (not extreme) stiffness bump with max wedge and max deck_gap to test whether jointly attacking storm's structural
- g32 `396bda91` fitness 6.359 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate pure deck/stack rigidity by committing real plate_thickness_scale (1.2, still carbon) and max deck_gap while holding every arm gene at the proven elite floor and stock sweep pairing -- every prior stiffness pivot bundled arm width/waist increases with the thickness bump and lost to the combined mass penalty, so this tests whether deck stiffness alone, not arm stiffness, is what storm actua
- g32 `e355e5e9` fitness 6.685 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior tough-material pivot (ASA/PA12-CF/PET-CF) has been tested at zero battery wedge and every wedge pivot has been tested only with long arms, so this combines a validated ASA build (material=0.9, thickness/waist/width well past prior tip-deflection failure points, plate_thickness_scale=1.0 margin) with max battery wedge and its validated clearance deck_gap, at the safe stock-adjacent 36/4
- g33 `17af4a9e` fitness 6.229 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past battery-wedge test bundled the frontal-area cut with longer arms or a material swap and lost to that confound; this applies max battery_wedge (15deg) with the wedge-clearance deck_gap (0.043) directly onto the otherwise-untouched elite floor-mass short-arm carbon baseline to finally isolate whether frontal-area reduction alone beats 6.144.
- g33 `569ca6a7` fitness 6.256 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate a modest (not extreme) arm-length increase alone at the exact validated elite baseline — every prior long-arm pivot jumped straight to 1.28-1.32 and lost to the mass/moment penalty, so this tests whether a mild disk-loading reduction (1.08, still well clear of tip-overlap since longer arms only add separation) pays off without that penalty.
- g33 `ad807299` fitness 6.183 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate a moderate battery wedge alone on the exact validated elite geometry with a touch more deck_gap for wedge clearance — every prior wedge test bundled it with long arms or extra plate thickness, so this checks whether frontal-area reduction pays off on its own without that compounded mass cost.
- g34 `32e907f6` fitness 6.441 Wh/km-agg — was: Every symmetric wide-sweep pivot has failed either on tongue-bolt geometry or fitness, but decoupled front/rear sweep has never been tried; this keeps the front tight near true stock (32 deg, avoiding frontal-area cost) while opening only the rear sweep (48 deg) for better rear-rotor separation, with generous plate growth (1.28/1.20, well beyond the 1.15/1.13 that previously still failed at 42/48)
- g34 `6d24a438` fitness 6.243 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior long-arm pivot kept the elite's off-stock 36/42 sweep and lost to the added mass/moment penalty; this instead pairs a moderate arm-length increase (1.15, for lower disk loading) with the true stock sweep (31.4/36) rather than the elite's swept-forward geometry, keeping width/waist/thickness and plate scale at the floor-mass carbon baseline to test whether stock sweep removes the tongue
- g34 `c76d7cce` fitness 6.814 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past pivot pushed a lever to its floor or its extreme (min-mass elite vs. maxed-out width/waist/thickness/wedge attempts) and all the extremes lost, but a uniformly moderate build across arm length, width, waist, thickness, plate margin and wedge has never been tested as a combination -- this isolates whether real-but-restrained margin on every axis at once (rather than one axis pushed hard)
- g36 `ca88346c` fitness 6.113 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past printed-material pivot bundled the switch with heavy over-compensation (max thickness, relaxed waist/width) and lost to the mass penalty, or with long arms; this instead pairs PA12-CF (material 0.25) with the elite's exact floor-mass short-arm geometry and only the minimum thickness/width/waist margin needed to clear the pa12_cf deflection floor and the 1.6 mm plate-web requirement, iso
- g39 `949d4213` fitness 6.195 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past max-deck_gap or minimum-arm-width test was confounded with battery wedge, long arms, or full waist relaxation; this pushes arm_width_scale to its absolute floor (0.75, maximum root drag/mass cut) with a compensating waist bump for tip stiffness and pairs it with max deck_gap (0.045) for unobstructed prop wash under the deck -- a joint minimum-frontal-arm-section plus max-clearance combo
- g39 `a07db56c` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: The only material pivot that has ever matched the elite (PA12-CF at the exact floor-mass short-arm geometry, g36 ca88346c, 6.113) has never been repeated with ASA -- every ASA test so far bundled it with long arms, max wedge, or heavy over-reinforcement and lost badly (6.68-7.39); this isolates ASA at the identical proven floor-mass geometry with only the minimal arm-thickness and plate-thickness 
- g39 `ba333594` fitness 6.195 Wh/km-agg — was: Retry the decoupled-rear-sweep widening (front held at 36 near-stock, rear now only +3 deg past the validated 42-deg elite rather than +4 past it, at 46) with plate_length_scale and plate_width_scale both raised well past the elite's 1.03 baseline (to 1.15) so the tongue bolts stay clear of the main plate edge this time.
- g42 `95e92047` fitness 6.104 Wh/km-agg — was: The pa12_cf elite family only won by being lighter than carbon at a thickness margin forced up to the printed-material 0.8 floor, but carbon plate has no such floor and is stiffer per unit thickness, so this switches to carbon (material 0.08) at the identical elite geometry while cutting plate_thickness_scale to 0.62 and arm_thickness to 0.0038 to test whether carbon's higher stiffness lets it und
- g42 `dbcbc551` fitness 6.048 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past arm_waist change was bundled with width/thickness bumps for stiffness or with wedge/long-arm pivots and lost, so this isolates a genuine further mid-shaft narrowing (0.58->0.48) at the exact elite floor-mass geometry, with only a minimal thickness bump (0.0042->0.0046) to cover the pa12_cf deflection floor, to test whether mid-arm drag cut alone pays off without a confounding lever.
- g42 `ef635239` fitness 6.038 Wh/km-agg — was: Same PA12-CF short-arm/36-42-sweep design as the failed attempt, but restore plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to the validated ~1.03/1.02 elite range instead of shrinking them to 0.97/0.96, since the failure was a too-thin main-plate web from under-scaled plates, not the arm or material genes.
- g43 `2870779c` fitness 6.243 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior long-arm pivot paired the lower disk loading with either a printed-material thickness floor or extra width/waist stiffness margin and lost to the combined mass tax, but carbon's superior stiffness-per-mass has never been paired with genuinely long arms and truly minimal thickness/plate mass, testing whether it lets long arms finally pay off.
- g43 `52d0f02a` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Every past max-wedge test held sweep near stock and every open-rear-sweep test used minimal-margin materials, so this stacks max battery wedge (frontal-area cut) with a genuinely opened rear sweep (prop-wash separation for storm gusts) and tough ASA with real plate stiffness, none of which has been combined before.
- g43 `b060e8d5` INVALID (arm resonance with rotor 1P) — was: Every past stiffness pivot bundled width AND thickness increases together, conflating frontal-drag-adding width with drag-neutral through-thickness bending stiffness, so this isolates a thin-narrow-but-maximally-thick carbon arm cross-section (min width, low waist, max thickness) to test whether out-of-plane stiffness alone -- without added frontal profile -- cracks the storm plateau.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 17, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 34, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 17, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 38, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 27, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 10, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 7, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.01 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.20 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.60 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.19 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.15 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.52 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pla_plus)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 4 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 PIVOTAL designs that abandon that trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space. Do NOT refine the elites — a pivot that lands near them is a wasted round. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 044e1644 — The plateau is built entirely on floor-mass PA12-CF short arms (0.79-0.81) with minimal stiffness margin -- storm is stuck at 4.63-4.64 across every elite variant, so this pivots to carbon (no printed-material thickness floor) with genuinely long arms (1.22, lower disk loading and more prop-wash separation) plus real width/waist/thickness stiffness margin and a moderate 8deg wedge, at the proven-sflew at 6.671 Wh/km
candidate 5bc6b43e — Every past stiffness pivot either isolated one axis (thickness alone failed on arm resonance) or bundled stiffness with a mass-cutting confound and lost; this abandons mass optimization entirely for a storm-hardened build -- wide arms (1.1), minimal waist narrowing (1.1), thick shafts (0.0075) and thick ASA plates (1.1x) at stock geometry and zero wedge -- to test whether committing real structuraflew at 6.867 Wh/km
candidate 72423ad9 — Max battery wedge has only ever been tested with short printed-material arms or bundled with sweep changes that broke tongue geometry; this instead pairs carbon (dodging the printed-material floor to keep mass low) with a genuinely narrow arm cross-section (0.6 width, real drag cut) and a longer arm (1.1) at the untouched stock sweep, stacking frontal-area reduction from both the wedge and the armflew at 6.613 Wh/km
candidate 1cc734af — rejected pre-flight (plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)) — Every prior aero pivot attacked frontal area (wedge) or mass separately at the elite's short-arm geometry, but never combined max wedge with a genuinely narrower side profile (plate_width_scale near the web-crush floor) on unlimited-thickness carbon, so this tests whether cutting BOTH frontal and side silhouette at once -- rather than cutting mass -- is what storm and crosswind actually want.
candidate 8bef9a8e — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — Past long-arm pivots (up to 1.28) always lost to the mass/moment penalty while still carrying pa12_cf's thickness floor or extra width/waist margin, and past wide-rear-sweep pivots never used carbon's floor-free thin plates, so this pushes arm length further (1.25) with asymmetric sweep for rear-rotor wake separation on a genuinely thin carbon build with the plate growth the wide sweep actually re
candidate 9f35bd67 — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — Every past tough-material pivot bundled the switch with either the elite's minimal-margin short-arm geometry (and failed deflection checks) or a maximalist every-lever-up build (and lost to combined mass), so this pairs ASA's stress headroom with a genuinely opened symmetric sweep for real rotor-wake separation and the plate growth it needs, while keeping arm length short and wedge at zero to isol

c742abdca96a

6.027 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.85
crosswind	3.70
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.63

61844712d53e

6.035 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.86
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.63

42b2f05c7846

6.035 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.86
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.63

ef6352398ebc

6.038 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.86
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.63

e94bc83e5e97

6.038 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.86
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.64

04d2b411edf2

6.039 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.86
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.64

61b5e47c6d2c

6.043 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.86
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.64

8509768926ba

6.044 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.86
crosswind	3.72
gusty_light	3.57
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.64

0410a3f940ac

6.085 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.20
cold_headwind	3.89
crosswind	3.74
gusty_light	3.59
hot_thin	3.41
storm	4.67

701835eba026

6.119 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.21
cold_headwind	3.92
crosswind	3.76
gusty_light	3.61
hot_thin	3.43
storm	4.70

2c48ce70cf6a

6.323 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.32
cold_headwind	4.05
crosswind	3.89
gusty_light	3.72
hot_thin	3.54
storm	4.86

72423ad99024

6.613 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.47
cold_headwind	4.25
crosswind	4.08
gusty_light	3.89
hot_thin	3.70
storm	5.07

044e16447b73

6.671 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.48
cold_headwind	4.31
crosswind	4.10
gusty_light	3.92
hot_thin	3.71
storm	5.12

5bc6b43ed5d9

6.867 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.57
cold_headwind	4.46
crosswind	4.23
gusty_light	4.03
hot_thin	3.81
storm	5.28

51a8976bd3a3

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.85
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.63

0ec4f7c1534b

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.86
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.63

generation 43

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 3 design(s) injected

elites carried over unchanged	3
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	3
pivot crosses (far parent)	6
random immigrants	1

mutation σ 0.049 of gene range
pivot σ 0.078 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 43 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.55..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.4..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.0025..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.5..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257, g21 6.257, g22 6.172, g23 6.165, g24 6.144, g25 6.144, g26 6.144, g27 6.144, g28 6.144, g29 6.144, g30 6.144, g31 6.144, g32 6.144, g33 6.144, g34 6.144, g35 6.144, g36 6.113, g37 6.113, g38 6.113, g39 6.051, g40 6.048, g41 6.045, g42 6.038 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 3 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.038 Wh/km-agg, frame 69 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8001, "arm_width_scale": 0.8221, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5819, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 36.02, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.13, "plate_length_scale": 1.03, "plate_width_scale": 1.02, "deck_gap": 0.0395, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8613, "material": 0.25} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.17, "cold_headwind": 3.86, "crosswind": 3.71, "gusty_light": 3.56, "hot_thin": 3.39, "storm": 4.63}
fitness 6.038 Wh/km-agg, frame 69 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8049, "arm_width_scale": 0.8231, "arm_waist_scale": 0.6014, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0674, "rear_sweep_deg": 41.9085, "plate_length_scale": 1.0295, "plate_width_scale": 1.0172, "deck_gap": 0.0395, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8624, "material": 0.249} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.18, "cold_headwind": 3.85, "crosswind": 3.71, "gusty_light": 3.56, "hot_thin": 3.39, "storm": 4.63}
fitness 6.045 Wh/km-agg, frame 69 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8001, "arm_width_scale": 0.8221, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5819, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0199, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.129, "plate_length_scale": 1.0364, "plate_width_scale": 1.019, "deck_gap": 0.0395, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8613, "material": 0.2499} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.18, "cold_headwind": 3.87, "crosswind": 3.71, "gusty_light": 3.56, "hot_thin": 3.39, "storm": 4.64}
fitness 6.047 Wh/km-agg, frame 69 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8046, "arm_width_scale": 0.823, "arm_waist_scale": 0.6106, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 36.061, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.1136, "plate_length_scale": 1.0296, "plate_width_scale": 1.017, "deck_gap": 0.0397, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.3834, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8562, "material": 0.2505} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.18, "cold_headwind": 3.86, "crosswind": 3.72, "gusty_light": 3.57, "hot_thin": 3.39, "storm": 4.64}
fitness 6.048 Wh/km-agg, frame 69 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8041, "arm_width_scale": 0.8229, "arm_waist_scale": 0.6014, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0679, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.1296, "plate_length_scale": 1.0295, "plate_width_scale": 1.019, "deck_gap": 0.0396, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8622, "material": 0.25} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.18, "cold_headwind": 3.87, "crosswind": 3.71, "gusty_light": 3.57, "hot_thin": 3.39, "storm": 4.64}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g30 `815bffc7` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Every material pivot away from carbon so far paired its compensation with the elite's short-arm shape and lost; this pairs long arms (lower disk loading, more distributed load path) with real thickness/width margin for genuine PETG toughness, testing whether the material only wins in a different geometric family.
- g30 `9f871c62` fitness 7.393 Wh/km-agg — was: Every current elite shares floor-mass arm width/waist/thickness bundled with short arms; this pivot fully commits to the opposite corner - long arms for low disk loading plus genuinely reinforced width/waist/thickness for real gust stiffness, at the proven-safe 36/42 sweep pairing, to test whether authentic structural margin (not just arm-length) is what unlocks past the storm plateau.
- g31 `15ac485d` fitness 6.531 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family shares a short-arm/high-disk-loading, zero-wedge, near-stock-sweep floor-mass build that keeps storm at 4.72+; this pivot abandons short arms for a genuinely low-disk-loading long-arm geometry (1.28, validated valid territory) while simultaneously pulling both sweeps to their tightest safe margin (32/37) for minimum frontal profile and adding max battery wedge (15deg) with 
- g31 `8180dd97` fitness 6.302 Wh/km-agg — was: Every previous material pivot bolted heavy over-compensation (max thickness, relaxed waist, wider width) onto a material change and always lost to the mass penalty; this instead pairs PET-CF (material 0.40) with the elite's proven low-stress short-arm geometry and only minimal thickness/width/waist nudges above the printed-material validity floor, testing whether toughness alone -- without brute s
- g31 `cbb51c89` fitness 6.622 Wh/km-agg — was: Real structural stiffness margin (width+waist+thickness raised together) and battery-wedge frontal-area reduction have each been isolated separately and both lost to a single-axis mass penalty, but never combined at the proven short-arm/stock-sweep baseline; this pivot stacks a genuine (not extreme) stiffness bump with max wedge and max deck_gap to test whether jointly attacking storm's structural
- g32 `396bda91` fitness 6.359 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate pure deck/stack rigidity by committing real plate_thickness_scale (1.2, still carbon) and max deck_gap while holding every arm gene at the proven elite floor and stock sweep pairing -- every prior stiffness pivot bundled arm width/waist increases with the thickness bump and lost to the combined mass penalty, so this tests whether deck stiffness alone, not arm stiffness, is what storm actua
- g32 `e355e5e9` fitness 6.685 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior tough-material pivot (ASA/PA12-CF/PET-CF) has been tested at zero battery wedge and every wedge pivot has been tested only with long arms, so this combines a validated ASA build (material=0.9, thickness/waist/width well past prior tip-deflection failure points, plate_thickness_scale=1.0 margin) with max battery wedge and its validated clearance deck_gap, at the safe stock-adjacent 36/4
- g33 `17af4a9e` fitness 6.229 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past battery-wedge test bundled the frontal-area cut with longer arms or a material swap and lost to that confound; this applies max battery_wedge (15deg) with the wedge-clearance deck_gap (0.043) directly onto the otherwise-untouched elite floor-mass short-arm carbon baseline to finally isolate whether frontal-area reduction alone beats 6.144.
- g33 `569ca6a7` fitness 6.256 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate a modest (not extreme) arm-length increase alone at the exact validated elite baseline — every prior long-arm pivot jumped straight to 1.28-1.32 and lost to the mass/moment penalty, so this tests whether a mild disk-loading reduction (1.08, still well clear of tip-overlap since longer arms only add separation) pays off without that penalty.
- g33 `ad807299` fitness 6.183 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate a moderate battery wedge alone on the exact validated elite geometry with a touch more deck_gap for wedge clearance — every prior wedge test bundled it with long arms or extra plate thickness, so this checks whether frontal-area reduction pays off on its own without that compounded mass cost.
- g34 `32e907f6` fitness 6.441 Wh/km-agg — was: Every symmetric wide-sweep pivot has failed either on tongue-bolt geometry or fitness, but decoupled front/rear sweep has never been tried; this keeps the front tight near true stock (32 deg, avoiding frontal-area cost) while opening only the rear sweep (48 deg) for better rear-rotor separation, with generous plate growth (1.28/1.20, well beyond the 1.15/1.13 that previously still failed at 42/48)
- g34 `6d24a438` fitness 6.243 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior long-arm pivot kept the elite's off-stock 36/42 sweep and lost to the added mass/moment penalty; this instead pairs a moderate arm-length increase (1.15, for lower disk loading) with the true stock sweep (31.4/36) rather than the elite's swept-forward geometry, keeping width/waist/thickness and plate scale at the floor-mass carbon baseline to test whether stock sweep removes the tongue
- g34 `c76d7cce` fitness 6.814 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past pivot pushed a lever to its floor or its extreme (min-mass elite vs. maxed-out width/waist/thickness/wedge attempts) and all the extremes lost, but a uniformly moderate build across arm length, width, waist, thickness, plate margin and wedge has never been tested as a combination -- this isolates whether real-but-restrained margin on every axis at once (rather than one axis pushed hard)
- g36 `ca88346c` fitness 6.113 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past printed-material pivot bundled the switch with heavy over-compensation (max thickness, relaxed waist/width) and lost to the mass penalty, or with long arms; this instead pairs PA12-CF (material 0.25) with the elite's exact floor-mass short-arm geometry and only the minimum thickness/width/waist margin needed to clear the pa12_cf deflection floor and the 1.6 mm plate-web requirement, iso
- g39 `949d4213` fitness 6.195 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past max-deck_gap or minimum-arm-width test was confounded with battery wedge, long arms, or full waist relaxation; this pushes arm_width_scale to its absolute floor (0.75, maximum root drag/mass cut) with a compensating waist bump for tip stiffness and pairs it with max deck_gap (0.045) for unobstructed prop wash under the deck -- a joint minimum-frontal-arm-section plus max-clearance combo
- g39 `a07db56c` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: The only material pivot that has ever matched the elite (PA12-CF at the exact floor-mass short-arm geometry, g36 ca88346c, 6.113) has never been repeated with ASA -- every ASA test so far bundled it with long arms, max wedge, or heavy over-reinforcement and lost badly (6.68-7.39); this isolates ASA at the identical proven floor-mass geometry with only the minimal arm-thickness and plate-thickness 
- g39 `ba333594` fitness 6.195 Wh/km-agg — was: Retry the decoupled-rear-sweep widening (front held at 36 near-stock, rear now only +3 deg past the validated 42-deg elite rather than +4 past it, at 46) with plate_length_scale and plate_width_scale both raised well past the elite's 1.03 baseline (to 1.15) so the tongue bolts stay clear of the main plate edge this time.
- g42 `95e92047` fitness 6.104 Wh/km-agg — was: The pa12_cf elite family only won by being lighter than carbon at a thickness margin forced up to the printed-material 0.8 floor, but carbon plate has no such floor and is stiffer per unit thickness, so this switches to carbon (material 0.08) at the identical elite geometry while cutting plate_thickness_scale to 0.62 and arm_thickness to 0.0038 to test whether carbon's higher stiffness lets it und
- g42 `dbcbc551` fitness 6.048 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past arm_waist change was bundled with width/thickness bumps for stiffness or with wedge/long-arm pivots and lost, so this isolates a genuine further mid-shaft narrowing (0.58->0.48) at the exact elite floor-mass geometry, with only a minimal thickness bump (0.0042->0.0046) to cover the pa12_cf deflection floor, to test whether mid-arm drag cut alone pays off without a confounding lever.
- g42 `ef635239` fitness 6.038 Wh/km-agg — was: Same PA12-CF short-arm/36-42-sweep design as the failed attempt, but restore plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to the validated ~1.03/1.02 elite range instead of shrinking them to 0.97/0.96, since the failure was a too-thin main-plate web from under-scaled plates, not the arm or material genes.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 17, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 34, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 17, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 38, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 27, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 8, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 6, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.01 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.20 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.60 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.19 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.15 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.52 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pla_plus)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 3 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 PIVOTAL designs that abandon that trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space. Do NOT refine the elites — a pivot that lands near them is a wasted round. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 2870779c — Every prior long-arm pivot paired the lower disk loading with either a printed-material thickness floor or extra width/waist stiffness margin and lost to the combined mass tax, but carbon's superior stiffness-per-mass has never been paired with genuinely long arms and truly minimal thickness/plate mass, testing whether it lets long arms finally pay off.flew at 6.243 Wh/km
candidate 52d0f02a — Every past max-wedge test held sweep near stock and every open-rear-sweep test used minimal-margin materials, so this stacks max battery wedge (frontal-area cut) with a genuinely opened rear sweep (prop-wash separation for storm gusts) and tough ASA with real plate stiffness, none of which has been combined before.invalid — arm tip deflection (petg)
candidate b060e8d5 — Every past stiffness pivot bundled width AND thickness increases together, conflating frontal-drag-adding width with drag-neutral through-thickness bending stiffness, so this isolates a thin-narrow-but-maximally-thick carbon arm cross-section (min width, low waist, max thickness) to test whether out-of-plane stiffness alone -- without added frontal profile -- cracks the storm plateau.invalid — arm resonance with rotor 1P

42b2f05c7846

6.035 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.86
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.63

ef6352398ebc

6.038 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.86
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.63

457bb2ac5e47

6.038 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.85
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.63

6f1d794a18c7

6.042 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.86
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.64

61b5e47c6d2c

6.043 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.86
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.64

ac358dd4b274

6.045 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.87
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.57
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.64

dbcbc5511a2c

6.048 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.87
crosswind	3.72
gusty_light	3.57
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.64

0badd20e965e

6.076 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.19
cold_headwind	3.88
crosswind	3.74
gusty_light	3.58
hot_thin	3.41
storm	4.66

d8448799edfe

6.117 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.21
cold_headwind	3.92
crosswind	3.77
gusty_light	3.61
hot_thin	3.43
storm	4.69

9f063558a52d

6.141 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.23
cold_headwind	3.93
crosswind	3.78
gusty_light	3.62
hot_thin	3.44
storm	4.71

2870779c5946

6.243 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.28
cold_headwind	4.00
crosswind	3.84
gusty_light	3.68
hot_thin	3.50
storm	4.79

90a9d9e00229

6.933 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.65
cold_headwind	4.43
crosswind	4.26
gusty_light	4.08
hot_thin	3.89
storm	5.32

217a43900fa0

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.21
cold_headwind	3.91
crosswind	3.75
gusty_light	3.60
hot_thin	3.42
storm	4.68

9ea1b394d56f

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.85
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.38
storm	4.62

52d0f02aaee2

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (petg)

calm_warm	3.57
cold_headwind	4.42
crosswind	4.20
gusty_light	4.00
hot_thin	3.79
storm	5.24

b060e8d5d1be

∞ wh/km agg

arm resonance with rotor 1P

calm_warm	3.57
cold_headwind	4.36
crosswind	4.19
gusty_light	4.01
hot_thin	3.81
storm	5.22

generation 42

inputs

✦ claude designer · scheduled round · 3 design(s) injected, 1 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	4
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	6
random immigrants	3

mutation σ 0.050 of gene range
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 42 · scheduled round · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.55..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.4..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.0025..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.5..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257, g21 6.257, g22 6.172, g23 6.165, g24 6.144, g25 6.144, g26 6.144, g27 6.144, g28 6.144, g29 6.144, g30 6.144, g31 6.144, g32 6.144, g33 6.144, g34 6.144, g35 6.144, g36 6.113, g37 6.113, g38 6.113, g39 6.051, g40 6.048, g41 6.045 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 2 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.045 Wh/km-agg, frame 69 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8001, "arm_width_scale": 0.8221, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5819, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0199, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.129, "plate_length_scale": 1.0364, "plate_width_scale": 1.019, "deck_gap": 0.0395, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8613, "material": 0.2499} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.18, "cold_headwind": 3.87, "crosswind": 3.71, "gusty_light": 3.56, "hot_thin": 3.39, "storm": 4.64}
fitness 6.047 Wh/km-agg, frame 69 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8046, "arm_width_scale": 0.823, "arm_waist_scale": 0.6106, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 36.061, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.1136, "plate_length_scale": 1.0296, "plate_width_scale": 1.017, "deck_gap": 0.0397, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.3834, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8562, "material": 0.2505} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.18, "cold_headwind": 3.86, "crosswind": 3.72, "gusty_light": 3.57, "hot_thin": 3.39, "storm": 4.64}
fitness 6.048 Wh/km-agg, frame 69 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8041, "arm_width_scale": 0.8229, "arm_waist_scale": 0.6014, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0679, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.1296, "plate_length_scale": 1.0295, "plate_width_scale": 1.019, "deck_gap": 0.0396, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8622, "material": 0.25} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.18, "cold_headwind": 3.87, "crosswind": 3.71, "gusty_light": 3.57, "hot_thin": 3.39, "storm": 4.64}
fitness 6.050 Wh/km-agg, frame 69 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8427, "arm_width_scale": 0.8129, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5757, "arm_thickness": 0.0043, "front_sweep_deg": 36.5658, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.5084, "plate_length_scale": 1.0291, "plate_width_scale": 1.0291, "deck_gap": 0.0382, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8004, "material": 0.2604} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.17, "cold_headwind": 3.87, "crosswind": 3.72, "gusty_light": 3.57, "hot_thin": 3.39, "storm": 4.64}
fitness 6.051 Wh/km-agg, frame 69 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8345, "arm_width_scale": 0.8091, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5916, "arm_thickness": 0.0043, "front_sweep_deg": 35.5223, "rear_sweep_deg": 41.1049, "plate_length_scale": 1.0375, "plate_width_scale": 1.0289, "deck_gap": 0.0381, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8, "material": 0.2405} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.18, "cold_headwind": 3.87, "crosswind": 3.72, "gusty_light": 3.57, "hot_thin": 3.39, "storm": 4.64}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g29 `3edd371f` fitness 6.391 Wh/km-agg — was: Same splayed-sweep, short-arm frontal-area pivot, but pull both sweeps back 2 deg and add far more plate-scale margin (1.22/1.20 vs 1.15/1.12) plus trim arm_width to 0.82 to shrink the tongue footprint, since the prior attempt's margin wasn't enough to keep the tongue bolts on the main plate.
- g29 `ec933900` fitness 6.460 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family sits at zero battery wedge with short 0.83-0.92 arms, so the two frontal-area/induced-power levers that each hit ~6.35-6.37 in isolation have never been combined; pair long arms (1.30, previously validated for tip clearance at stock sweep) with max battery wedge (15) and the wedge-clearance deck_gap (0.043) to test whether lower disk loading plus reduced frontal area jointl
- g30 `61158ead` fitness 6.829 Wh/km-agg — was: Combine long-arm low disk loading with max battery wedge and max deck_gap for frontal-area reduction, plus a real deck-stiffness bump - an aero+clearance+stiffness combo never tested together (prior wedge+arm-length tests kept plate_thickness at the floor), at the same proven 36/42 sweep pairing.
- g30 `815bffc7` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Every material pivot away from carbon so far paired its compensation with the elite's short-arm shape and lost; this pairs long arms (lower disk loading, more distributed load path) with real thickness/width margin for genuine PETG toughness, testing whether the material only wins in a different geometric family.
- g30 `9f871c62` fitness 7.393 Wh/km-agg — was: Every current elite shares floor-mass arm width/waist/thickness bundled with short arms; this pivot fully commits to the opposite corner - long arms for low disk loading plus genuinely reinforced width/waist/thickness for real gust stiffness, at the proven-safe 36/42 sweep pairing, to test whether authentic structural margin (not just arm-length) is what unlocks past the storm plateau.
- g31 `15ac485d` fitness 6.531 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family shares a short-arm/high-disk-loading, zero-wedge, near-stock-sweep floor-mass build that keeps storm at 4.72+; this pivot abandons short arms for a genuinely low-disk-loading long-arm geometry (1.28, validated valid territory) while simultaneously pulling both sweeps to their tightest safe margin (32/37) for minimum frontal profile and adding max battery wedge (15deg) with 
- g31 `8180dd97` fitness 6.302 Wh/km-agg — was: Every previous material pivot bolted heavy over-compensation (max thickness, relaxed waist, wider width) onto a material change and always lost to the mass penalty; this instead pairs PET-CF (material 0.40) with the elite's proven low-stress short-arm geometry and only minimal thickness/width/waist nudges above the printed-material validity floor, testing whether toughness alone -- without brute s
- g31 `cbb51c89` fitness 6.622 Wh/km-agg — was: Real structural stiffness margin (width+waist+thickness raised together) and battery-wedge frontal-area reduction have each been isolated separately and both lost to a single-axis mass penalty, but never combined at the proven short-arm/stock-sweep baseline; this pivot stacks a genuine (not extreme) stiffness bump with max wedge and max deck_gap to test whether jointly attacking storm's structural
- g32 `396bda91` fitness 6.359 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate pure deck/stack rigidity by committing real plate_thickness_scale (1.2, still carbon) and max deck_gap while holding every arm gene at the proven elite floor and stock sweep pairing -- every prior stiffness pivot bundled arm width/waist increases with the thickness bump and lost to the combined mass penalty, so this tests whether deck stiffness alone, not arm stiffness, is what storm actua
- g32 `e355e5e9` fitness 6.685 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior tough-material pivot (ASA/PA12-CF/PET-CF) has been tested at zero battery wedge and every wedge pivot has been tested only with long arms, so this combines a validated ASA build (material=0.9, thickness/waist/width well past prior tip-deflection failure points, plate_thickness_scale=1.0 margin) with max battery wedge and its validated clearance deck_gap, at the safe stock-adjacent 36/4
- g33 `17af4a9e` fitness 6.229 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past battery-wedge test bundled the frontal-area cut with longer arms or a material swap and lost to that confound; this applies max battery_wedge (15deg) with the wedge-clearance deck_gap (0.043) directly onto the otherwise-untouched elite floor-mass short-arm carbon baseline to finally isolate whether frontal-area reduction alone beats 6.144.
- g33 `569ca6a7` fitness 6.256 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate a modest (not extreme) arm-length increase alone at the exact validated elite baseline — every prior long-arm pivot jumped straight to 1.28-1.32 and lost to the mass/moment penalty, so this tests whether a mild disk-loading reduction (1.08, still well clear of tip-overlap since longer arms only add separation) pays off without that penalty.
- g33 `ad807299` fitness 6.183 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate a moderate battery wedge alone on the exact validated elite geometry with a touch more deck_gap for wedge clearance — every prior wedge test bundled it with long arms or extra plate thickness, so this checks whether frontal-area reduction pays off on its own without that compounded mass cost.
- g34 `32e907f6` fitness 6.441 Wh/km-agg — was: Every symmetric wide-sweep pivot has failed either on tongue-bolt geometry or fitness, but decoupled front/rear sweep has never been tried; this keeps the front tight near true stock (32 deg, avoiding frontal-area cost) while opening only the rear sweep (48 deg) for better rear-rotor separation, with generous plate growth (1.28/1.20, well beyond the 1.15/1.13 that previously still failed at 42/48)
- g34 `6d24a438` fitness 6.243 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior long-arm pivot kept the elite's off-stock 36/42 sweep and lost to the added mass/moment penalty; this instead pairs a moderate arm-length increase (1.15, for lower disk loading) with the true stock sweep (31.4/36) rather than the elite's swept-forward geometry, keeping width/waist/thickness and plate scale at the floor-mass carbon baseline to test whether stock sweep removes the tongue
- g34 `c76d7cce` fitness 6.814 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past pivot pushed a lever to its floor or its extreme (min-mass elite vs. maxed-out width/waist/thickness/wedge attempts) and all the extremes lost, but a uniformly moderate build across arm length, width, waist, thickness, plate margin and wedge has never been tested as a combination -- this isolates whether real-but-restrained margin on every axis at once (rather than one axis pushed hard)
- g36 `ca88346c` fitness 6.113 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past printed-material pivot bundled the switch with heavy over-compensation (max thickness, relaxed waist/width) and lost to the mass penalty, or with long arms; this instead pairs PA12-CF (material 0.25) with the elite's exact floor-mass short-arm geometry and only the minimum thickness/width/waist margin needed to clear the pa12_cf deflection floor and the 1.6 mm plate-web requirement, iso
- g39 `949d4213` fitness 6.195 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past max-deck_gap or minimum-arm-width test was confounded with battery wedge, long arms, or full waist relaxation; this pushes arm_width_scale to its absolute floor (0.75, maximum root drag/mass cut) with a compensating waist bump for tip stiffness and pairs it with max deck_gap (0.045) for unobstructed prop wash under the deck -- a joint minimum-frontal-arm-section plus max-clearance combo
- g39 `a07db56c` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: The only material pivot that has ever matched the elite (PA12-CF at the exact floor-mass short-arm geometry, g36 ca88346c, 6.113) has never been repeated with ASA -- every ASA test so far bundled it with long arms, max wedge, or heavy over-reinforcement and lost badly (6.68-7.39); this isolates ASA at the identical proven floor-mass geometry with only the minimal arm-thickness and plate-thickness 
- g39 `ba333594` fitness 6.195 Wh/km-agg — was: Retry the decoupled-rear-sweep widening (front held at 36 near-stock, rear now only +3 deg past the validated 42-deg elite rather than +4 past it, at 46) with plate_length_scale and plate_width_scale both raised well past the elite's 1.03 baseline (to 1.15) so the tongue bolts stay clear of the main plate edge this time.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 17, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 34, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 17, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 38, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 27, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 6, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 6, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.01 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.20 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.60 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.19 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.15 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.52 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pla_plus)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

Propose exactly 3 NEW genome vectors that are meaningfully DIFFERENT from the elites and from each other — design hypotheses, not small perturbations. Build on what the trajectory and your earlier proposals' outcomes show worked; avoid repeating what failed. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate dbcbc551 — Every past arm_waist change was bundled with width/thickness bumps for stiffness or with wedge/long-arm pivots and lost, so this isolates a genuine further mid-shaft narrowing (0.58->0.48) at the exact elite floor-mass geometry, with only a minimal thickness bump (0.0042->0.0046) to cover the pa12_cf deflection floor, to test whether mid-arm drag cut alone pays off without a confounding lever.flew at 6.048 Wh/km
candidate 95e92047 — The pa12_cf elite family only won by being lighter than carbon at a thickness margin forced up to the printed-material 0.8 floor, but carbon plate has no such floor and is stiffer per unit thickness, so this switches to carbon (material 0.08) at the identical elite geometry while cutting plate_thickness_scale to 0.62 and arm_thickness to 0.0038 to test whether carbon's higher stiffness lets it undflew at 6.104 Wh/km
candidate ef635239 — Same PA12-CF short-arm/36-42-sweep design as the failed attempt, but restore plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to the validated ~1.03/1.02 elite range instead of shrinking them to 0.97/0.96, since the failure was a too-thin main-plate web from under-scaled plates, not the arm or material genes.flew at 6.038 Wh/km
candidate c42056a2 — rejected pre-flight (plate web too thin (plate_main 1.25 mm, stock 1.90 mm)) — Every previous plate-scale test only ever raised plate_length/width_scale for margin or sweep clearance, never lowered it, but the elite's sweep is only mildly off-stock (4.6/6.1 deg) so this pushes plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale down toward the ~0.95 web-crush floor (0.97/0.96) at the unchanged elite arm and sweep geometry to directly test whether the extra plate margin the elite carries is

ef6352398ebc

6.038 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.86
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.63

457bb2ac5e47

6.038 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.85
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.63

2991738d5132

6.045 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.87
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.64

f8c8be2c331f

6.047 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.86
crosswind	3.72
gusty_light	3.57
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.64

dbcbc5511a2c

6.048 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.87
crosswind	3.72
gusty_light	3.57
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.64

5df9751e95d0

6.050 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.87
crosswind	3.72
gusty_light	3.57
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.64

00d69e7202dc

6.051 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.87
crosswind	3.72
gusty_light	3.57
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.64

4e8c86fe9cfd

6.053 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.87
crosswind	3.72
gusty_light	3.57
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.65

862d8e667f8b

6.053 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.87
crosswind	3.72
gusty_light	3.57
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.65

180679501aae

6.079 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.20
cold_headwind	3.89
crosswind	3.74
gusty_light	3.59
hot_thin	3.41
storm	4.67

95e920477f01

6.104 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.22
cold_headwind	3.89
crosswind	3.74
gusty_light	3.60
hot_thin	3.43
storm	4.68

d94fcd57ce7b

6.910 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.63
cold_headwind	4.47
crosswind	4.25
gusty_light	4.06
hot_thin	3.86
storm	5.30

7a3f2120adc9

7.836 wh/km agg

calm_warm	4.08
cold_headwind	5.11
crosswind	4.81
gusty_light	4.58
hot_thin	4.34
storm	6.02

42ca51189c9f

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pet_cf)

calm_warm	3.43
cold_headwind	4.15
crosswind	3.98
gusty_light	3.82
hot_thin	3.65
storm	4.98

e277be04787c

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.86
crosswind	3.72
gusty_light	3.57
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.64

87764e8d2b28

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.16
cold_headwind	3.84
crosswind	3.69
gusty_light	3.55
hot_thin	3.37
storm	4.61

generation 41

2991738d5132

6.045 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.87
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.56
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.64

f8c8be2c331f

6.047 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.86
crosswind	3.72
gusty_light	3.57
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.64

b26f1effed24

6.048 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.87
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.57
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.64

0d752fea69f4

6.050 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.87
crosswind	3.72
gusty_light	3.57
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.64

00d69e7202dc

6.051 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.87
crosswind	3.72
gusty_light	3.57
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.64

4e8c86fe9cfd

6.053 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.87
crosswind	3.72
gusty_light	3.57
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.65

d7e4979050ec

6.053 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.87
crosswind	3.72
gusty_light	3.57
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.65

2af171e11744

6.053 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.88
crosswind	3.72
gusty_light	3.57
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.65

2bb6414b71fa

6.054 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.19
cold_headwind	3.87
crosswind	3.72
gusty_light	3.57
hot_thin	3.40
storm	4.65

f51834f0b747

6.058 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.87
crosswind	3.73
gusty_light	3.57
hot_thin	3.40
storm	4.65

1d1a039b58b4

6.104 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.20
cold_headwind	3.91
crosswind	3.75
gusty_light	3.60
hot_thin	3.42
storm	4.69

8eb779f55ac7

6.107 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.20
cold_headwind	3.92
crosswind	3.75
gusty_light	3.60
hot_thin	3.42
storm	4.69

e1d2da86901c

6.119 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.21
cold_headwind	3.92
crosswind	3.77
gusty_light	3.61
hot_thin	3.43
storm	4.70

80c5ee1097bf

6.146 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.23
cold_headwind	3.94
crosswind	3.78
gusty_light	3.62
hot_thin	3.44
storm	4.72

9ba9158bdef9

6.259 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	3.98
crosswind	3.84
gusty_light	3.69
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.80

7e8868b08525

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pla_plus)

calm_warm	3.54
cold_headwind	4.44
crosswind	4.17
gusty_light	3.98
hot_thin	3.77
storm	5.23

generation 40

b26f1effed24

6.048 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.87
crosswind	3.71
gusty_light	3.57
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.64

0d752fea69f4

6.050 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.17
cold_headwind	3.87
crosswind	3.72
gusty_light	3.57
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.64

913f15a5a9be

6.051 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.87
crosswind	3.72
gusty_light	3.57
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.64

4e8c86fe9cfd

6.053 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.87
crosswind	3.72
gusty_light	3.57
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.65

9a6c9cf64456

6.053 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.87
crosswind	3.72
gusty_light	3.57
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.65

94d7793ebd81

6.054 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.19
cold_headwind	3.87
crosswind	3.72
gusty_light	3.57
hot_thin	3.40
storm	4.65

1e085d6fc34d

6.103 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.20
cold_headwind	3.91
crosswind	3.75
gusty_light	3.60
hot_thin	3.41
storm	4.69

132ad498aa78

6.131 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.21
cold_headwind	3.93
crosswind	3.77
gusty_light	3.61
hot_thin	3.43
storm	4.71

f599a08e6b30

6.148 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.22
cold_headwind	3.94
crosswind	3.78
gusty_light	3.62
hot_thin	3.44
storm	4.72

c1b516e9f31c

6.157 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.25
cold_headwind	3.92
crosswind	3.78
gusty_light	3.63
hot_thin	3.46
storm	4.72

8043ba576adb

6.175 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.24
cold_headwind	3.96
crosswind	3.80
gusty_light	3.64
hot_thin	3.45
storm	4.74

24d993b7140b

6.180 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.26
cold_headwind	3.94
crosswind	3.79
gusty_light	3.64
hot_thin	3.48
storm	4.74

044622631444

6.210 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.27
cold_headwind	3.96
crosswind	3.81
gusty_light	3.66
hot_thin	3.49
storm	4.77

6db49c8c6352

6.442 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.39
cold_headwind	4.10
crosswind	3.96
gusty_light	3.80
hot_thin	3.62
storm	4.94

58571c6a9bc4

7.477 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.88
cold_headwind	4.89
crosswind	4.61
gusty_light	4.37
hot_thin	4.13
storm	5.75

b58c522a2c18

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.15
cold_headwind	3.83
crosswind	3.68
gusty_light	3.53
hot_thin	3.36
storm	4.60

generation 39

inputs

✦ claude designer · scheduled round · 3 design(s) injected, 1 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	10
mutants (single parent)	1

mutation σ 0.055 of gene range
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 39 · scheduled round · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.75..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.55..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.004..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.7..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257, g21 6.257, g22 6.172, g23 6.165, g24 6.144, g25 6.144, g26 6.144, g27 6.144, g28 6.144, g29 6.144, g30 6.144, g31 6.144, g32 6.144, g33 6.144, g34 6.144, g35 6.144, g36 6.113, g37 6.113, g38 6.113 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 2 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.113 Wh/km-agg, frame 74 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.83, "arm_width_scale": 0.78, "arm_waist_scale": 0.6, "arm_thickness": 0.0048, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.0, "plate_length_scale": 1.03, "plate_width_scale": 1.0241, "deck_gap": 0.04, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8276, "material": 0.25} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.2, "cold_headwind": 3.92, "crosswind": 3.76, "gusty_light": 3.6, "hot_thin": 3.42, "storm": 4.69}
fitness 6.113 Wh/km-agg, frame 74 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.83, "arm_width_scale": 0.78, "arm_waist_scale": 0.6, "arm_thickness": 0.0048, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.0, "plate_length_scale": 1.03, "plate_width_scale": 1.03, "deck_gap": 0.04, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.82, "material": 0.25} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.2, "cold_headwind": 3.92, "crosswind": 3.76, "gusty_light": 3.6, "hot_thin": 3.42, "storm": 4.69}
fitness 6.115 Wh/km-agg, frame 74 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8346, "arm_width_scale": 0.7985, "arm_waist_scale": 0.6014, "arm_thickness": 0.0048, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0679, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.13, "plate_length_scale": 1.0295, "plate_width_scale": 1.0291, "deck_gap": 0.0395, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8195, "material": 0.2579} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.21, "cold_headwind": 3.91, "crosswind": 3.76, "gusty_light": 3.61, "hot_thin": 3.42, "storm": 4.69}
fitness 6.131 Wh/km-agg, frame 81 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.805, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.0, "plate_length_scale": 1.02, "plate_width_scale": 1.02, "deck_gap": 0.041, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0222} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.23, "cold_headwind": 3.9, "crosswind": 3.76, "gusty_light": 3.62, "hot_thin": 3.45, "storm": 4.71}
fitness 6.133 Wh/km-agg, frame 82 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.818, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.556, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 37.6765, "rear_sweep_deg": 41.9785, "plate_length_scale": 0.9889, "plate_width_scale": 1.02, "deck_gap": 0.0409, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0018, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7197, "material": 0.0008} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.24, "cold_headwind": 3.9, "crosswind": 3.76, "gusty_light": 3.62, "hot_thin": 3.46, "storm": 4.71}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g28 `b154ee08` fitness 6.451 Wh/km-agg — was: Same max-battery-wedge frontal-area reduction test at near-stock sweep, but raise arm_length_scale from 0.85 to 1.15 (past the previously-validated clearance fix of 1.1) to restore rotor tip separation instead of letting the short arms overlap.
- g28 `ff31eeb4` fitness 6.746 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior tough-material pivot (ASA/PA12-CF/PET-CF/PETG) kept the elite's short, near-stock-sweep arm proportions and either under-compensated or still lost, so this pivot pairs a fully committed ASA build (material 0.9, arm_thickness well past every past tip-deflection failure point, waist and width both relaxed, plate_thickness_scale at a full 1.0 margin above the printed-material floor) with 
- g29 `093c1d4d` fitness 6.376 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior PA12-CF/PET-CF/ASA/PETG pivot stacked its material compensation onto longer or wider arms and always lost to the combined mass penalty; keep the arm at the validated short, low-moment floor (0.85) with only a moderate width/waist/thickness bump and the minimum printed-material plate floor (0.9) to test whether a genuinely short-arm PA12-CF build is the missing configuration that makes 
- g29 `3edd371f` fitness 6.391 Wh/km-agg — was: Same splayed-sweep, short-arm frontal-area pivot, but pull both sweeps back 2 deg and add far more plate-scale margin (1.22/1.20 vs 1.15/1.12) plus trim arm_width to 0.82 to shrink the tongue footprint, since the prior attempt's margin wasn't enough to keep the tongue bolts on the main plate.
- g29 `ec933900` fitness 6.460 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family sits at zero battery wedge with short 0.83-0.92 arms, so the two frontal-area/induced-power levers that each hit ~6.35-6.37 in isolation have never been combined; pair long arms (1.30, previously validated for tip clearance at stock sweep) with max battery wedge (15) and the wedge-clearance deck_gap (0.043) to test whether lower disk loading plus reduced frontal area jointl
- g30 `61158ead` fitness 6.829 Wh/km-agg — was: Combine long-arm low disk loading with max battery wedge and max deck_gap for frontal-area reduction, plus a real deck-stiffness bump - an aero+clearance+stiffness combo never tested together (prior wedge+arm-length tests kept plate_thickness at the floor), at the same proven 36/42 sweep pairing.
- g30 `815bffc7` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Every material pivot away from carbon so far paired its compensation with the elite's short-arm shape and lost; this pairs long arms (lower disk loading, more distributed load path) with real thickness/width margin for genuine PETG toughness, testing whether the material only wins in a different geometric family.
- g30 `9f871c62` fitness 7.393 Wh/km-agg — was: Every current elite shares floor-mass arm width/waist/thickness bundled with short arms; this pivot fully commits to the opposite corner - long arms for low disk loading plus genuinely reinforced width/waist/thickness for real gust stiffness, at the proven-safe 36/42 sweep pairing, to test whether authentic structural margin (not just arm-length) is what unlocks past the storm plateau.
- g31 `15ac485d` fitness 6.531 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family shares a short-arm/high-disk-loading, zero-wedge, near-stock-sweep floor-mass build that keeps storm at 4.72+; this pivot abandons short arms for a genuinely low-disk-loading long-arm geometry (1.28, validated valid territory) while simultaneously pulling both sweeps to their tightest safe margin (32/37) for minimum frontal profile and adding max battery wedge (15deg) with 
- g31 `8180dd97` fitness 6.302 Wh/km-agg — was: Every previous material pivot bolted heavy over-compensation (max thickness, relaxed waist, wider width) onto a material change and always lost to the mass penalty; this instead pairs PET-CF (material 0.40) with the elite's proven low-stress short-arm geometry and only minimal thickness/width/waist nudges above the printed-material validity floor, testing whether toughness alone -- without brute s
- g31 `cbb51c89` fitness 6.622 Wh/km-agg — was: Real structural stiffness margin (width+waist+thickness raised together) and battery-wedge frontal-area reduction have each been isolated separately and both lost to a single-axis mass penalty, but never combined at the proven short-arm/stock-sweep baseline; this pivot stacks a genuine (not extreme) stiffness bump with max wedge and max deck_gap to test whether jointly attacking storm's structural
- g32 `396bda91` fitness 6.359 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate pure deck/stack rigidity by committing real plate_thickness_scale (1.2, still carbon) and max deck_gap while holding every arm gene at the proven elite floor and stock sweep pairing -- every prior stiffness pivot bundled arm width/waist increases with the thickness bump and lost to the combined mass penalty, so this tests whether deck stiffness alone, not arm stiffness, is what storm actua
- g32 `e355e5e9` fitness 6.685 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior tough-material pivot (ASA/PA12-CF/PET-CF) has been tested at zero battery wedge and every wedge pivot has been tested only with long arms, so this combines a validated ASA build (material=0.9, thickness/waist/width well past prior tip-deflection failure points, plate_thickness_scale=1.0 margin) with max battery wedge and its validated clearance deck_gap, at the safe stock-adjacent 36/4
- g33 `17af4a9e` fitness 6.229 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past battery-wedge test bundled the frontal-area cut with longer arms or a material swap and lost to that confound; this applies max battery_wedge (15deg) with the wedge-clearance deck_gap (0.043) directly onto the otherwise-untouched elite floor-mass short-arm carbon baseline to finally isolate whether frontal-area reduction alone beats 6.144.
- g33 `569ca6a7` fitness 6.256 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate a modest (not extreme) arm-length increase alone at the exact validated elite baseline — every prior long-arm pivot jumped straight to 1.28-1.32 and lost to the mass/moment penalty, so this tests whether a mild disk-loading reduction (1.08, still well clear of tip-overlap since longer arms only add separation) pays off without that penalty.
- g33 `ad807299` fitness 6.183 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate a moderate battery wedge alone on the exact validated elite geometry with a touch more deck_gap for wedge clearance — every prior wedge test bundled it with long arms or extra plate thickness, so this checks whether frontal-area reduction pays off on its own without that compounded mass cost.
- g34 `32e907f6` fitness 6.441 Wh/km-agg — was: Every symmetric wide-sweep pivot has failed either on tongue-bolt geometry or fitness, but decoupled front/rear sweep has never been tried; this keeps the front tight near true stock (32 deg, avoiding frontal-area cost) while opening only the rear sweep (48 deg) for better rear-rotor separation, with generous plate growth (1.28/1.20, well beyond the 1.15/1.13 that previously still failed at 42/48)
- g34 `6d24a438` fitness 6.243 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior long-arm pivot kept the elite's off-stock 36/42 sweep and lost to the added mass/moment penalty; this instead pairs a moderate arm-length increase (1.15, for lower disk loading) with the true stock sweep (31.4/36) rather than the elite's swept-forward geometry, keeping width/waist/thickness and plate scale at the floor-mass carbon baseline to test whether stock sweep removes the tongue
- g34 `c76d7cce` fitness 6.814 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past pivot pushed a lever to its floor or its extreme (min-mass elite vs. maxed-out width/waist/thickness/wedge attempts) and all the extremes lost, but a uniformly moderate build across arm length, width, waist, thickness, plate margin and wedge has never been tested as a combination -- this isolates whether real-but-restrained margin on every axis at once (rather than one axis pushed hard)
- g36 `ca88346c` fitness 6.113 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past printed-material pivot bundled the switch with heavy over-compensation (max thickness, relaxed waist/width) and lost to the mass penalty, or with long arms; this instead pairs PA12-CF (material 0.25) with the elite's exact floor-mass short-arm geometry and only the minimum thickness/width/waist margin needed to clear the pa12_cf deflection floor and the 1.6 mm plate-web requirement, iso

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 17, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 34, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 17, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 36, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 27, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.01 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.20 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.60 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.19 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.15 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.52 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

Propose exactly 3 NEW genome vectors that are meaningfully DIFFERENT from the elites and from each other — design hypotheses, not small perturbations. Build on what the trajectory and your earlier proposals' outcomes show worked; avoid repeating what failed. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate a07db56c — The only material pivot that has ever matched the elite (PA12-CF at the exact floor-mass short-arm geometry, g36 ca88346c, 6.113) has never been repeated with ASA -- every ASA test so far bundled it with long arms, max wedge, or heavy over-reinforcement and lost badly (6.68-7.39); this isolates ASA at the identical proven floor-mass geometry with only the minimal arm-thickness and plate-thickness invalid — arm tip deflection (petg)
candidate 949d4213 — Every past max-deck_gap or minimum-arm-width test was confounded with battery wedge, long arms, or full waist relaxation; this pushes arm_width_scale to its absolute floor (0.75, maximum root drag/mass cut) with a compensating waist bump for tip stiffness and pairs it with max deck_gap (0.045) for unobstructed prop wash under the deck -- a joint minimum-frontal-arm-section plus max-clearance comboflew at 6.195 Wh/km
candidate ba333594 — Retry the decoupled-rear-sweep widening (front held at 36 near-stock, rear now only +3 deg past the validated 42-deg elite rather than +4 past it, at 46) with plate_length_scale and plate_width_scale both raised well past the elite's 1.03 baseline (to 1.15) so the tongue bolts stay clear of the main plate edge this time.flew at 6.195 Wh/km
candidate 464dc8ab — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — Every prior decoupled-sweep test used a large delta (32/48) that broke tongue-bolt plate geometry or lost on fitness, and every sweep change has kept the front/rear pair locked together; this widens only the rear sweep by a modest 4 deg beyond the elite's 42 (for better rear-rotor wake separation in storm/crosswind) while holding the front at the proven 36, with just enough plate-scale growth on t

913f15a5a9be

6.051 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.18
cold_headwind	3.87
crosswind	3.72
gusty_light	3.57
hot_thin	3.39
storm	4.64

1e085d6fc34d

6.103 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.20
cold_headwind	3.91
crosswind	3.75
gusty_light	3.60
hot_thin	3.41
storm	4.69

da4458bc7198

6.113 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.20
cold_headwind	3.92
crosswind	3.76
gusty_light	3.60
hot_thin	3.42
storm	4.69

ca88346c95ae

6.113 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.20
cold_headwind	3.92
crosswind	3.76
gusty_light	3.60
hot_thin	3.42
storm	4.69

dbf202026ed3

6.115 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.21
cold_headwind	3.92
crosswind	3.76
gusty_light	3.60
hot_thin	3.42
storm	4.69

7f8d4756ea04

6.120 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.21
cold_headwind	3.92
crosswind	3.77
gusty_light	3.61
hot_thin	3.43
storm	4.70

3f41acfb942f

6.120 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.21
cold_headwind	3.92
crosswind	3.76
gusty_light	3.61
hot_thin	3.42
storm	4.70

3a9a12eda70c

6.159 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.25
cold_headwind	3.93
crosswind	3.77
gusty_light	3.63
hot_thin	3.46
storm	4.73

5dcb419e3690

6.173 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.26
cold_headwind	3.93
crosswind	3.79
gusty_light	3.64
hot_thin	3.47
storm	4.74

03b32f3eab46

6.192 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.27
cold_headwind	3.95
crosswind	3.80
gusty_light	3.65
hot_thin	3.48
storm	4.75

ba3335941d8f

6.195 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.24
cold_headwind	3.98
crosswind	3.81
gusty_light	3.65
hot_thin	3.46
storm	4.76

949d42134462

6.195 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.25
cold_headwind	3.97
crosswind	3.81
gusty_light	3.65
hot_thin	3.47
storm	4.75

7d43a417f1f2

6.219 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.28
cold_headwind	3.96
crosswind	3.81
gusty_light	3.67
hot_thin	3.50
storm	4.77

639b97e47509

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

dffe97e19dd9

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

a07db56c3819

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (petg)

calm_warm	3.29
cold_headwind	4.02
crosswind	3.86
gusty_light	3.70
hot_thin	3.51
storm	4.82

generation 38

da4458bc7198

6.113 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.20
cold_headwind	3.92
crosswind	3.76
gusty_light	3.60
hot_thin	3.42
storm	4.69

ca88346c95ae

6.113 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.20
cold_headwind	3.92
crosswind	3.76
gusty_light	3.60
hot_thin	3.42
storm	4.69

0166abd4d36e

6.115 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.21
cold_headwind	3.91
crosswind	3.76
gusty_light	3.61
hot_thin	3.42
storm	4.69

ec81aaaf05c6

6.131 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.23
cold_headwind	3.90
crosswind	3.76
gusty_light	3.62
hot_thin	3.45
storm	4.71

f0383d09886a

6.133 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.24
cold_headwind	3.90
crosswind	3.76
gusty_light	3.62
hot_thin	3.46
storm	4.71

9260206b6ee5

6.143 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.24
cold_headwind	3.91
crosswind	3.77
gusty_light	3.62
hot_thin	3.46
storm	4.71

16ea95b31b16

6.144 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.24
cold_headwind	3.91
crosswind	3.77
gusty_light	3.63
hot_thin	3.46
storm	4.71

d08641cae373

6.159 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.26
cold_headwind	3.92
crosswind	3.77
gusty_light	3.63
hot_thin	3.47
storm	4.72

79c5e250a588

6.169 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.26
cold_headwind	3.92
crosswind	3.79
gusty_light	3.64
hot_thin	3.47
storm	4.73

646a06905c29

6.199 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.27
cold_headwind	3.94
crosswind	3.80
gusty_light	3.66
hot_thin	3.49
storm	4.76

9ebdf15fa1b3

6.201 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.28
cold_headwind	3.95
crosswind	3.80
gusty_light	3.66
hot_thin	3.49
storm	4.76

c2194cd7082c

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

8fca3fafec84

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

e4629c493eda

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.52 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

394f794f199d

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

b520f60f597a

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

generation 37

ca88346c95ae

6.113 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.20
cold_headwind	3.92
crosswind	3.76
gusty_light	3.60
hot_thin	3.42
storm	4.69

ec81aaaf05c6

6.131 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.23
cold_headwind	3.90
crosswind	3.76
gusty_light	3.62
hot_thin	3.45
storm	4.71

4d5a5ecbbe0d

6.140 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.24
cold_headwind	3.91
crosswind	3.76
gusty_light	3.62
hot_thin	3.46
storm	4.71

d0f89ce2aa6f

6.140 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.24
cold_headwind	3.90
crosswind	3.77
gusty_light	3.62
hot_thin	3.46
storm	4.71

7a4cfa76b20b

6.154 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.26
cold_headwind	3.92
crosswind	3.77
gusty_light	3.63
hot_thin	3.47
storm	4.72

07256a73c70a

6.184 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.26
cold_headwind	3.94
crosswind	3.80
gusty_light	3.65
hot_thin	3.48
storm	4.75

e6224bd7bd8e

6.207 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.27
cold_headwind	3.96
crosswind	3.81
gusty_light	3.66
hot_thin	3.49
storm	4.76

b30ff77c67b3

6.209 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.28
cold_headwind	3.95
crosswind	3.81
gusty_light	3.66
hot_thin	3.49
storm	4.76

db7cbd66a195

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

17dc0583bfae

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

979d78592857

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

099b579302c5

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

8ab6b6f87a10

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

19f9d20d2d03

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

62ae7f8034b1

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

97da84bc1788

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.15 mm, stock 1.47 mm)

generation 36

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 1 design(s) injected, 4 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	1
crossovers (tournament parents)	5
mutants (single parent)	1
pivot crosses (far parent)	7

mutation σ 0.060 of gene range
pivot σ 0.096 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 36 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.75..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.55..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.004..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.7..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257, g21 6.257, g22 6.172, g23 6.165, g24 6.144, g25 6.144, g26 6.144, g27 6.144, g28 6.144, g29 6.144, g30 6.144, g31 6.144, g32 6.144, g33 6.144, g34 6.144, g35 6.144 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 13 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.144 Wh/km-agg, frame 82 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.83, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.0, "plate_length_scale": 1.02, "plate_width_scale": 1.02, "deck_gap": 0.04, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.05} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.24, "cold_headwind": 3.91, "crosswind": 3.77, "gusty_light": 3.62, "hot_thin": 3.46, "storm": 4.72}
fitness 6.154 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8313, "arm_width_scale": 0.7714, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 42.0038, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.6524, "plate_length_scale": 1.0154, "plate_width_scale": 1.0415, "deck_gap": 0.0404, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.004, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7144, "material": 0.0651} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.25, "cold_headwind": 3.91, "crosswind": 3.77, "gusty_light": 3.63, "hot_thin": 3.47, "storm": 4.72}
fitness 6.156 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8387, "arm_width_scale": 0.7689, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 35.2658, "rear_sweep_deg": 41.9791, "plate_length_scale": 1.0199, "plate_width_scale": 0.989, "deck_gap": 0.0429, "battery_wedge_deg": 3.5814, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7054, "material": 0.0354} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.25, "cold_headwind": 3.92, "crosswind": 3.78, "gusty_light": 3.63, "hot_thin": 3.47, "storm": 4.72}
fitness 6.157 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8312, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5501, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 35.9765, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.1502, "plate_length_scale": 1.0591, "plate_width_scale": 1.0207, "deck_gap": 0.04, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7032, "material": 0.0526} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.25, "cold_headwind": 3.92, "crosswind": 3.78, "gusty_light": 3.63, "hot_thin": 3.46, "storm": 4.73}
fitness 6.157 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8312, "arm_width_scale": 0.7716, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 42.2649, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.8065, "plate_length_scale": 1.0156, "plate_width_scale": 1.0423, "deck_gap": 0.0404, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7143, "material": 0.1436} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.26, "cold_headwind": 3.92, "crosswind": 3.77, "gusty_light": 3.63, "hot_thin": 3.47, "storm": 4.72}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g28 `029bbd03` fitness 6.771 Wh/km-agg — was: Same long-arm low-disk-loading pivot as the failed design, but instead of pairing it with a wide 42/48 sweep that missed the main plate, hold sweep at the proven-valid 36/42 elite pairing (already validated with arm_length_scale=1.30 in frame d1bffb11) and only modestly grow plate scale (1.05/1.05) to buffer the wider/de-pinched root against the width and waist stiffness increase.
- g28 `b154ee08` fitness 6.451 Wh/km-agg — was: Same max-battery-wedge frontal-area reduction test at near-stock sweep, but raise arm_length_scale from 0.85 to 1.15 (past the previously-validated clearance fix of 1.1) to restore rotor tip separation instead of letting the short arms overlap.
- g28 `ff31eeb4` fitness 6.746 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior tough-material pivot (ASA/PA12-CF/PET-CF/PETG) kept the elite's short, near-stock-sweep arm proportions and either under-compensated or still lost, so this pivot pairs a fully committed ASA build (material 0.9, arm_thickness well past every past tip-deflection failure point, waist and width both relaxed, plate_thickness_scale at a full 1.0 margin above the printed-material floor) with 
- g29 `093c1d4d` fitness 6.376 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior PA12-CF/PET-CF/ASA/PETG pivot stacked its material compensation onto longer or wider arms and always lost to the combined mass penalty; keep the arm at the validated short, low-moment floor (0.85) with only a moderate width/waist/thickness bump and the minimum printed-material plate floor (0.9) to test whether a genuinely short-arm PA12-CF build is the missing configuration that makes 
- g29 `3edd371f` fitness 6.391 Wh/km-agg — was: Same splayed-sweep, short-arm frontal-area pivot, but pull both sweeps back 2 deg and add far more plate-scale margin (1.22/1.20 vs 1.15/1.12) plus trim arm_width to 0.82 to shrink the tongue footprint, since the prior attempt's margin wasn't enough to keep the tongue bolts on the main plate.
- g29 `ec933900` fitness 6.460 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family sits at zero battery wedge with short 0.83-0.92 arms, so the two frontal-area/induced-power levers that each hit ~6.35-6.37 in isolation have never been combined; pair long arms (1.30, previously validated for tip clearance at stock sweep) with max battery wedge (15) and the wedge-clearance deck_gap (0.043) to test whether lower disk loading plus reduced frontal area jointl
- g30 `61158ead` fitness 6.829 Wh/km-agg — was: Combine long-arm low disk loading with max battery wedge and max deck_gap for frontal-area reduction, plus a real deck-stiffness bump - an aero+clearance+stiffness combo never tested together (prior wedge+arm-length tests kept plate_thickness at the floor), at the same proven 36/42 sweep pairing.
- g30 `815bffc7` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Every material pivot away from carbon so far paired its compensation with the elite's short-arm shape and lost; this pairs long arms (lower disk loading, more distributed load path) with real thickness/width margin for genuine PETG toughness, testing whether the material only wins in a different geometric family.
- g30 `9f871c62` fitness 7.393 Wh/km-agg — was: Every current elite shares floor-mass arm width/waist/thickness bundled with short arms; this pivot fully commits to the opposite corner - long arms for low disk loading plus genuinely reinforced width/waist/thickness for real gust stiffness, at the proven-safe 36/42 sweep pairing, to test whether authentic structural margin (not just arm-length) is what unlocks past the storm plateau.
- g31 `15ac485d` fitness 6.531 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family shares a short-arm/high-disk-loading, zero-wedge, near-stock-sweep floor-mass build that keeps storm at 4.72+; this pivot abandons short arms for a genuinely low-disk-loading long-arm geometry (1.28, validated valid territory) while simultaneously pulling both sweeps to their tightest safe margin (32/37) for minimum frontal profile and adding max battery wedge (15deg) with 
- g31 `8180dd97` fitness 6.302 Wh/km-agg — was: Every previous material pivot bolted heavy over-compensation (max thickness, relaxed waist, wider width) onto a material change and always lost to the mass penalty; this instead pairs PET-CF (material 0.40) with the elite's proven low-stress short-arm geometry and only minimal thickness/width/waist nudges above the printed-material validity floor, testing whether toughness alone -- without brute s
- g31 `cbb51c89` fitness 6.622 Wh/km-agg — was: Real structural stiffness margin (width+waist+thickness raised together) and battery-wedge frontal-area reduction have each been isolated separately and both lost to a single-axis mass penalty, but never combined at the proven short-arm/stock-sweep baseline; this pivot stacks a genuine (not extreme) stiffness bump with max wedge and max deck_gap to test whether jointly attacking storm's structural
- g32 `396bda91` fitness 6.359 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate pure deck/stack rigidity by committing real plate_thickness_scale (1.2, still carbon) and max deck_gap while holding every arm gene at the proven elite floor and stock sweep pairing -- every prior stiffness pivot bundled arm width/waist increases with the thickness bump and lost to the combined mass penalty, so this tests whether deck stiffness alone, not arm stiffness, is what storm actua
- g32 `e355e5e9` fitness 6.685 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior tough-material pivot (ASA/PA12-CF/PET-CF) has been tested at zero battery wedge and every wedge pivot has been tested only with long arms, so this combines a validated ASA build (material=0.9, thickness/waist/width well past prior tip-deflection failure points, plate_thickness_scale=1.0 margin) with max battery wedge and its validated clearance deck_gap, at the safe stock-adjacent 36/4
- g33 `17af4a9e` fitness 6.229 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past battery-wedge test bundled the frontal-area cut with longer arms or a material swap and lost to that confound; this applies max battery_wedge (15deg) with the wedge-clearance deck_gap (0.043) directly onto the otherwise-untouched elite floor-mass short-arm carbon baseline to finally isolate whether frontal-area reduction alone beats 6.144.
- g33 `569ca6a7` fitness 6.256 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate a modest (not extreme) arm-length increase alone at the exact validated elite baseline — every prior long-arm pivot jumped straight to 1.28-1.32 and lost to the mass/moment penalty, so this tests whether a mild disk-loading reduction (1.08, still well clear of tip-overlap since longer arms only add separation) pays off without that penalty.
- g33 `ad807299` fitness 6.183 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate a moderate battery wedge alone on the exact validated elite geometry with a touch more deck_gap for wedge clearance — every prior wedge test bundled it with long arms or extra plate thickness, so this checks whether frontal-area reduction pays off on its own without that compounded mass cost.
- g34 `32e907f6` fitness 6.441 Wh/km-agg — was: Every symmetric wide-sweep pivot has failed either on tongue-bolt geometry or fitness, but decoupled front/rear sweep has never been tried; this keeps the front tight near true stock (32 deg, avoiding frontal-area cost) while opening only the rear sweep (48 deg) for better rear-rotor separation, with generous plate growth (1.28/1.20, well beyond the 1.15/1.13 that previously still failed at 42/48)
- g34 `6d24a438` fitness 6.243 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior long-arm pivot kept the elite's off-stock 36/42 sweep and lost to the added mass/moment penalty; this instead pairs a moderate arm-length increase (1.15, for lower disk loading) with the true stock sweep (31.4/36) rather than the elite's swept-forward geometry, keeping width/waist/thickness and plate scale at the floor-mass carbon baseline to test whether stock sweep removes the tongue
- g34 `c76d7cce` fitness 6.814 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past pivot pushed a lever to its floor or its extreme (min-mass elite vs. maxed-out width/waist/thickness/wedge attempts) and all the extremes lost, but a uniformly moderate build across arm length, width, waist, thickness, plate margin and wedge has never been tested as a combination -- this isolates whether real-but-restrained margin on every axis at once (rather than one axis pushed hard)

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 29, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 17, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 29, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 27, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.01 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.20 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.60 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.19 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 13 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 PIVOTAL designs that abandon that trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space. Do NOT refine the elites — a pivot that lands near them is a wasted round. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate ca88346c — Every past printed-material pivot bundled the switch with heavy over-compensation (max thickness, relaxed waist/width) and lost to the mass penalty, or with long arms; this instead pairs PA12-CF (material 0.25) with the elite's exact floor-mass short-arm geometry and only the minimum thickness/width/waist margin needed to clear the pa12_cf deflection floor and the 1.6 mm plate-web requirement, isoflew at 6.113 Wh/km
candidate 6854dbc3 — rejected pre-flight (plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)) — Every elite already sits near-floor on width/waist/thickness/material/wedge but still carries arm_length_scale=0.83 and 36/42 sweep with 1.02 plate scale; this pushes arm_length to near its true floor (0.76) paired with true-stock sweep (32/37, minimizing deviation) so plate scale can also drop toward its validity floor (0.97/0.97), testing the genuinely minimum-mass corner that no prior pivot has
candidate 5ced9132 — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Decoupled front/rear sweep and max battery wedge have each been tested alone (6.243 and 6.229 respectively) but never combined; pairing a tight front sweep (32 deg, minimal frontal profile) with a wide rear sweep (50 deg, better rear rotor separation) and full 15 deg wedge -- with plate scale grown enough (1.25/1.18) to keep the rear tongue bolts valid -- tests whether frontal-area and rear-separa
candidate 6967cfa2 — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Retry the below-elite-footprint pivot (arm_length 0.76, tight sweep, plate 0.97) that failed on web thickness by keeping arm_length near-floor (0.80) and tight near-stock sweep (32/37), but restoring plate_length/width_scale to the elite-safe 1.02 so the FC-stack webs stay above the stock minimum instead of being crushed.
candidate 9e416c14 — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — Retry the max-wedge plus wide-rear-sweep frontal-area pivot that overlapped rotor disks despite generous plate growth (tip clearance is an arm-geometry constraint, not a plate-size one) by pulling rear sweep back from 50 to 44 and growing arm_length_scale to 1.00 for genuine tip separation, while keeping width/waist/thickness at the floor and wedge maxed for the frontal-area cut.

ca88346c95ae

6.113 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.20
cold_headwind	3.92
crosswind	3.76
gusty_light	3.60
hot_thin	3.42
storm	4.69

ec81aaaf05c6

6.131 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.23
cold_headwind	3.90
crosswind	3.76
gusty_light	3.62
hot_thin	3.45
storm	4.71

b5fd89cd1e22

6.144 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.24
cold_headwind	3.91
crosswind	3.77
gusty_light	3.62
hot_thin	3.46
storm	4.72

4a0fbfe92906

6.154 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.25
cold_headwind	3.91
crosswind	3.77
gusty_light	3.63
hot_thin	3.47
storm	4.72

1a8724bc0df6

6.156 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.25
cold_headwind	3.92
crosswind	3.78
gusty_light	3.63
hot_thin	3.46
storm	4.72

b321f6c217f5

6.159 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.25
cold_headwind	3.92
crosswind	3.78
gusty_light	3.63
hot_thin	3.47
storm	4.73

8da55bcaa280

6.159 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.25
cold_headwind	3.92
crosswind	3.78
gusty_light	3.63
hot_thin	3.47
storm	4.73

076e6be28b6a

6.188 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.26
cold_headwind	3.94
crosswind	3.80
gusty_light	3.65
hot_thin	3.48
storm	4.75

4606597626b2

6.208 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.28
cold_headwind	3.95
crosswind	3.81
gusty_light	3.66
hot_thin	3.49
storm	4.76

39cf0e9274ce

6.208 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.28
cold_headwind	3.95
crosswind	3.81
gusty_light	3.66
hot_thin	3.50
storm	4.76

732583c1f8f1

6.209 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.27
cold_headwind	3.96
crosswind	3.81
gusty_light	3.66
hot_thin	3.49
storm	4.77

946804e7bf65

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

2a076adeeffe

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

29c0da1fa718

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)

19d586d76585

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

571e89750b3b

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

generation 35

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · no usable proposals returned

elites carried over unchanged	2
crossovers (tournament parents)	6
mutants (single parent)	1
pivot crosses (far parent)	7

mutation σ 0.062 of gene range
pivot σ 0.099 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 35 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.75..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.55..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.004..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.7..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257, g21 6.257, g22 6.172, g23 6.165, g24 6.144, g25 6.144, g26 6.144, g27 6.144, g28 6.144, g29 6.144, g30 6.144, g31 6.144, g32 6.144, g33 6.144, g34 6.144 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 12 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.144 Wh/km-agg, frame 82 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.83, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.0, "plate_length_scale": 1.02, "plate_width_scale": 1.02, "deck_gap": 0.04, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.05} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.24, "cold_headwind": 3.91, "crosswind": 3.77, "gusty_light": 3.62, "hot_thin": 3.46, "storm": 4.72}
fitness 6.154 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8313, "arm_width_scale": 0.7714, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 42.0038, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.6524, "plate_length_scale": 1.0154, "plate_width_scale": 1.0415, "deck_gap": 0.0404, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.004, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7144, "material": 0.0651} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.25, "cold_headwind": 3.91, "crosswind": 3.77, "gusty_light": 3.63, "hot_thin": 3.47, "storm": 4.72}
fitness 6.156 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8387, "arm_width_scale": 0.7689, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 35.2658, "rear_sweep_deg": 41.9791, "plate_length_scale": 1.0199, "plate_width_scale": 0.989, "deck_gap": 0.0429, "battery_wedge_deg": 3.5814, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7054, "material": 0.0354} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.25, "cold_headwind": 3.92, "crosswind": 3.78, "gusty_light": 3.63, "hot_thin": 3.47, "storm": 4.72}
fitness 6.158 Wh/km-agg, frame 84 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8435, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.0041, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0623, "rear_sweep_deg": 41.9975, "plate_length_scale": 1.0309, "plate_width_scale": 1.0198, "deck_gap": 0.0401, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.8324, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0461} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.25, "cold_headwind": 3.92, "crosswind": 3.78, "gusty_light": 3.63, "hot_thin": 3.47, "storm": 4.72}
fitness 6.160 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8654, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 41.6897, "plate_length_scale": 1.002, "plate_width_scale": 1.02, "deck_gap": 0.0423, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7107, "material": 0.05} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.25, "cold_headwind": 3.92, "crosswind": 3.78, "gusty_light": 3.63, "hot_thin": 3.46, "storm": 4.73}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g28 `029bbd03` fitness 6.771 Wh/km-agg — was: Same long-arm low-disk-loading pivot as the failed design, but instead of pairing it with a wide 42/48 sweep that missed the main plate, hold sweep at the proven-valid 36/42 elite pairing (already validated with arm_length_scale=1.30 in frame d1bffb11) and only modestly grow plate scale (1.05/1.05) to buffer the wider/de-pinched root against the width and waist stiffness increase.
- g28 `b154ee08` fitness 6.451 Wh/km-agg — was: Same max-battery-wedge frontal-area reduction test at near-stock sweep, but raise arm_length_scale from 0.85 to 1.15 (past the previously-validated clearance fix of 1.1) to restore rotor tip separation instead of letting the short arms overlap.
- g28 `ff31eeb4` fitness 6.746 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior tough-material pivot (ASA/PA12-CF/PET-CF/PETG) kept the elite's short, near-stock-sweep arm proportions and either under-compensated or still lost, so this pivot pairs a fully committed ASA build (material 0.9, arm_thickness well past every past tip-deflection failure point, waist and width both relaxed, plate_thickness_scale at a full 1.0 margin above the printed-material floor) with 
- g29 `093c1d4d` fitness 6.376 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior PA12-CF/PET-CF/ASA/PETG pivot stacked its material compensation onto longer or wider arms and always lost to the combined mass penalty; keep the arm at the validated short, low-moment floor (0.85) with only a moderate width/waist/thickness bump and the minimum printed-material plate floor (0.9) to test whether a genuinely short-arm PA12-CF build is the missing configuration that makes 
- g29 `3edd371f` fitness 6.391 Wh/km-agg — was: Same splayed-sweep, short-arm frontal-area pivot, but pull both sweeps back 2 deg and add far more plate-scale margin (1.22/1.20 vs 1.15/1.12) plus trim arm_width to 0.82 to shrink the tongue footprint, since the prior attempt's margin wasn't enough to keep the tongue bolts on the main plate.
- g29 `ec933900` fitness 6.460 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family sits at zero battery wedge with short 0.83-0.92 arms, so the two frontal-area/induced-power levers that each hit ~6.35-6.37 in isolation have never been combined; pair long arms (1.30, previously validated for tip clearance at stock sweep) with max battery wedge (15) and the wedge-clearance deck_gap (0.043) to test whether lower disk loading plus reduced frontal area jointl
- g30 `61158ead` fitness 6.829 Wh/km-agg — was: Combine long-arm low disk loading with max battery wedge and max deck_gap for frontal-area reduction, plus a real deck-stiffness bump - an aero+clearance+stiffness combo never tested together (prior wedge+arm-length tests kept plate_thickness at the floor), at the same proven 36/42 sweep pairing.
- g30 `815bffc7` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Every material pivot away from carbon so far paired its compensation with the elite's short-arm shape and lost; this pairs long arms (lower disk loading, more distributed load path) with real thickness/width margin for genuine PETG toughness, testing whether the material only wins in a different geometric family.
- g30 `9f871c62` fitness 7.393 Wh/km-agg — was: Every current elite shares floor-mass arm width/waist/thickness bundled with short arms; this pivot fully commits to the opposite corner - long arms for low disk loading plus genuinely reinforced width/waist/thickness for real gust stiffness, at the proven-safe 36/42 sweep pairing, to test whether authentic structural margin (not just arm-length) is what unlocks past the storm plateau.
- g31 `15ac485d` fitness 6.531 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family shares a short-arm/high-disk-loading, zero-wedge, near-stock-sweep floor-mass build that keeps storm at 4.72+; this pivot abandons short arms for a genuinely low-disk-loading long-arm geometry (1.28, validated valid territory) while simultaneously pulling both sweeps to their tightest safe margin (32/37) for minimum frontal profile and adding max battery wedge (15deg) with 
- g31 `8180dd97` fitness 6.302 Wh/km-agg — was: Every previous material pivot bolted heavy over-compensation (max thickness, relaxed waist, wider width) onto a material change and always lost to the mass penalty; this instead pairs PET-CF (material 0.40) with the elite's proven low-stress short-arm geometry and only minimal thickness/width/waist nudges above the printed-material validity floor, testing whether toughness alone -- without brute s
- g31 `cbb51c89` fitness 6.622 Wh/km-agg — was: Real structural stiffness margin (width+waist+thickness raised together) and battery-wedge frontal-area reduction have each been isolated separately and both lost to a single-axis mass penalty, but never combined at the proven short-arm/stock-sweep baseline; this pivot stacks a genuine (not extreme) stiffness bump with max wedge and max deck_gap to test whether jointly attacking storm's structural
- g32 `396bda91` fitness 6.359 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate pure deck/stack rigidity by committing real plate_thickness_scale (1.2, still carbon) and max deck_gap while holding every arm gene at the proven elite floor and stock sweep pairing -- every prior stiffness pivot bundled arm width/waist increases with the thickness bump and lost to the combined mass penalty, so this tests whether deck stiffness alone, not arm stiffness, is what storm actua
- g32 `e355e5e9` fitness 6.685 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior tough-material pivot (ASA/PA12-CF/PET-CF) has been tested at zero battery wedge and every wedge pivot has been tested only with long arms, so this combines a validated ASA build (material=0.9, thickness/waist/width well past prior tip-deflection failure points, plate_thickness_scale=1.0 margin) with max battery wedge and its validated clearance deck_gap, at the safe stock-adjacent 36/4
- g33 `17af4a9e` fitness 6.229 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past battery-wedge test bundled the frontal-area cut with longer arms or a material swap and lost to that confound; this applies max battery_wedge (15deg) with the wedge-clearance deck_gap (0.043) directly onto the otherwise-untouched elite floor-mass short-arm carbon baseline to finally isolate whether frontal-area reduction alone beats 6.144.
- g33 `569ca6a7` fitness 6.256 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate a modest (not extreme) arm-length increase alone at the exact validated elite baseline — every prior long-arm pivot jumped straight to 1.28-1.32 and lost to the mass/moment penalty, so this tests whether a mild disk-loading reduction (1.08, still well clear of tip-overlap since longer arms only add separation) pays off without that penalty.
- g33 `ad807299` fitness 6.183 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate a moderate battery wedge alone on the exact validated elite geometry with a touch more deck_gap for wedge clearance — every prior wedge test bundled it with long arms or extra plate thickness, so this checks whether frontal-area reduction pays off on its own without that compounded mass cost.
- g34 `32e907f6` fitness 6.441 Wh/km-agg — was: Every symmetric wide-sweep pivot has failed either on tongue-bolt geometry or fitness, but decoupled front/rear sweep has never been tried; this keeps the front tight near true stock (32 deg, avoiding frontal-area cost) while opening only the rear sweep (48 deg) for better rear-rotor separation, with generous plate growth (1.28/1.20, well beyond the 1.15/1.13 that previously still failed at 42/48)
- g34 `6d24a438` fitness 6.243 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior long-arm pivot kept the elite's off-stock 36/42 sweep and lost to the added mass/moment penalty; this instead pairs a moderate arm-length increase (1.15, for lower disk loading) with the true stock sweep (31.4/36) rather than the elite's swept-forward geometry, keeping width/waist/thickness and plate scale at the floor-mass carbon baseline to test whether stock sweep removes the tongue
- g34 `c76d7cce` fitness 6.814 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past pivot pushed a lever to its floor or its extreme (min-mass elite vs. maxed-out width/waist/thickness/wedge attempts) and all the extremes lost, but a uniformly moderate build across arm length, width, waist, thickness, plate margin and wedge has never been tested as a combination -- this isolates whether real-but-restrained margin on every axis at once (rather than one axis pushed hard)

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 27, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 17, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 27, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 27, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.01 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.20 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.60 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.19 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 12 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 PIVOTAL designs that abandon that trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space. Do NOT refine the elites — a pivot that lands near them is a wasted round. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

claude’s reply contained no usable genome vectors — nothing was injected and the generation proceeded with ordinary GA breeding (fail-soft)

b5fd89cd1e22

6.144 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.24
cold_headwind	3.91
crosswind	3.77
gusty_light	3.62
hot_thin	3.46
storm	4.72

4a0fbfe92906

6.154 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.25
cold_headwind	3.91
crosswind	3.77
gusty_light	3.63
hot_thin	3.47
storm	4.72

33ab77f283dd

6.157 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.25
cold_headwind	3.92
crosswind	3.78
gusty_light	3.63
hot_thin	3.46
storm	4.73

d28e201210a9

6.157 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.26
cold_headwind	3.92
crosswind	3.77
gusty_light	3.63
hot_thin	3.47
storm	4.72

10bac74fbaf3

6.174 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.26
cold_headwind	3.93
crosswind	3.78
gusty_light	3.64
hot_thin	3.48
storm	4.74

252b5daf7b18

6.194 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.27
cold_headwind	3.95
crosswind	3.80
gusty_light	3.65
hot_thin	3.48
storm	4.75

a8359c6458ff

6.195 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.27
cold_headwind	3.95
crosswind	3.80
gusty_light	3.65
hot_thin	3.48
storm	4.75

828eaefbfeb7

6.218 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.29
cold_headwind	3.96
crosswind	3.81
gusty_light	3.67
hot_thin	3.51
storm	4.77

d899f2b793c7

6.219 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.29
cold_headwind	3.96
crosswind	3.81
gusty_light	3.67
hot_thin	3.50
storm	4.77

f617d1a3cea6

6.263 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.32
cold_headwind	3.98
crosswind	3.84
gusty_light	3.69
hot_thin	3.53
storm	4.80

946429287b67

6.369 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.37
cold_headwind	4.06
crosswind	3.91
gusty_light	3.76
hot_thin	3.59
storm	4.89

27544d45eb94

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

7e3cfb28251e

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

b78c5f9a09d9

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

fb400498f2e6

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

e0de6938fcf8

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

generation 34

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 3 design(s) injected, 3 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	3
pivot crosses (far parent)	7
random immigrants	1

mutation σ 0.064 of gene range
pivot σ 0.102 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 34 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.75..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.55..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.004..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.7..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257, g21 6.257, g22 6.172, g23 6.165, g24 6.144, g25 6.144, g26 6.144, g27 6.144, g28 6.144, g29 6.144, g30 6.144, g31 6.144, g32 6.144, g33 6.144 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 11 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.144 Wh/km-agg, frame 82 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.83, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.0, "plate_length_scale": 1.02, "plate_width_scale": 1.02, "deck_gap": 0.04, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.05} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.24, "cold_headwind": 3.91, "crosswind": 3.77, "gusty_light": 3.62, "hot_thin": 3.46, "storm": 4.72}
fitness 6.156 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8387, "arm_width_scale": 0.7689, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 35.2658, "rear_sweep_deg": 41.9791, "plate_length_scale": 1.0199, "plate_width_scale": 0.989, "deck_gap": 0.0429, "battery_wedge_deg": 3.5814, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7054, "material": 0.0354} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.25, "cold_headwind": 3.92, "crosswind": 3.78, "gusty_light": 3.63, "hot_thin": 3.47, "storm": 4.72}
fitness 6.158 Wh/km-agg, frame 84 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8435, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.0041, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0623, "rear_sweep_deg": 41.9975, "plate_length_scale": 1.0309, "plate_width_scale": 1.0198, "deck_gap": 0.0401, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.8324, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0461} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.25, "cold_headwind": 3.92, "crosswind": 3.78, "gusty_light": 3.63, "hot_thin": 3.47, "storm": 4.72}
fitness 6.160 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8654, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 41.6897, "plate_length_scale": 1.002, "plate_width_scale": 1.02, "deck_gap": 0.0423, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7107, "material": 0.05} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.25, "cold_headwind": 3.92, "crosswind": 3.78, "gusty_light": 3.63, "hot_thin": 3.46, "storm": 4.73}
fitness 6.160 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8651, "arm_width_scale": 0.7551, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0328, "rear_sweep_deg": 41.6365, "plate_length_scale": 1.0062, "plate_width_scale": 1.0182, "deck_gap": 0.0418, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.551, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7007, "material": 0.0358} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.25, "cold_headwind": 3.92, "crosswind": 3.78, "gusty_light": 3.63, "hot_thin": 3.47, "storm": 4.73}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g27 `1b980041` fitness 6.324 Wh/km-agg — was: Long arm_length has only ever been tested bundled with a waist change and elite-adjacent sweep (scored worse at 6.358), never paired with genuinely tight, near-floor sweep on both axes -- this isolates true low-disk-loading, minimum-frontal-profile geometry by pushing arm_length to 1.32 while pulling sweep close to the stock minimum (32/36, with a small buffer off the true 30/34 floor to avoid ton
- g27 `38fcbadb` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Every prior material pivot bolted single-axis compensation (thickness alone, or thickness+waist) onto the elite's short-arm/near-stock-sweep carbon shape and always lost; this instead rebuilds proportions from scratch around untested PETG (material 0.75) with arms genuinely elongated (1.05, cutting disk loading) plus simultaneously widened (0.85) and de-pinched (waist 0.85) for real stiffness marg
- g27 `71f4f5ad` fitness 6.333 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family shares narrow near-stock sweep (36/42) paired with short arms (0.83-0.92) -- a minimum-frontal-profile, minimum-disk-loading compromise that has plateaued storm at 4.72-4.75; this pivot commits fully to the opposite side of that tradeoff by combining short arms (0.85, near the validated tip-clearance floor) with a genuinely wide splayed sweep (front 44, rear 50, plate scale
- g28 `029bbd03` fitness 6.771 Wh/km-agg — was: Same long-arm low-disk-loading pivot as the failed design, but instead of pairing it with a wide 42/48 sweep that missed the main plate, hold sweep at the proven-valid 36/42 elite pairing (already validated with arm_length_scale=1.30 in frame d1bffb11) and only modestly grow plate scale (1.05/1.05) to buffer the wider/de-pinched root against the width and waist stiffness increase.
- g28 `b154ee08` fitness 6.451 Wh/km-agg — was: Same max-battery-wedge frontal-area reduction test at near-stock sweep, but raise arm_length_scale from 0.85 to 1.15 (past the previously-validated clearance fix of 1.1) to restore rotor tip separation instead of letting the short arms overlap.
- g28 `ff31eeb4` fitness 6.746 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior tough-material pivot (ASA/PA12-CF/PET-CF/PETG) kept the elite's short, near-stock-sweep arm proportions and either under-compensated or still lost, so this pivot pairs a fully committed ASA build (material 0.9, arm_thickness well past every past tip-deflection failure point, waist and width both relaxed, plate_thickness_scale at a full 1.0 margin above the printed-material floor) with 
- g29 `093c1d4d` fitness 6.376 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior PA12-CF/PET-CF/ASA/PETG pivot stacked its material compensation onto longer or wider arms and always lost to the combined mass penalty; keep the arm at the validated short, low-moment floor (0.85) with only a moderate width/waist/thickness bump and the minimum printed-material plate floor (0.9) to test whether a genuinely short-arm PA12-CF build is the missing configuration that makes 
- g29 `3edd371f` fitness 6.391 Wh/km-agg — was: Same splayed-sweep, short-arm frontal-area pivot, but pull both sweeps back 2 deg and add far more plate-scale margin (1.22/1.20 vs 1.15/1.12) plus trim arm_width to 0.82 to shrink the tongue footprint, since the prior attempt's margin wasn't enough to keep the tongue bolts on the main plate.
- g29 `ec933900` fitness 6.460 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family sits at zero battery wedge with short 0.83-0.92 arms, so the two frontal-area/induced-power levers that each hit ~6.35-6.37 in isolation have never been combined; pair long arms (1.30, previously validated for tip clearance at stock sweep) with max battery wedge (15) and the wedge-clearance deck_gap (0.043) to test whether lower disk loading plus reduced frontal area jointl
- g30 `61158ead` fitness 6.829 Wh/km-agg — was: Combine long-arm low disk loading with max battery wedge and max deck_gap for frontal-area reduction, plus a real deck-stiffness bump - an aero+clearance+stiffness combo never tested together (prior wedge+arm-length tests kept plate_thickness at the floor), at the same proven 36/42 sweep pairing.
- g30 `815bffc7` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Every material pivot away from carbon so far paired its compensation with the elite's short-arm shape and lost; this pairs long arms (lower disk loading, more distributed load path) with real thickness/width margin for genuine PETG toughness, testing whether the material only wins in a different geometric family.
- g30 `9f871c62` fitness 7.393 Wh/km-agg — was: Every current elite shares floor-mass arm width/waist/thickness bundled with short arms; this pivot fully commits to the opposite corner - long arms for low disk loading plus genuinely reinforced width/waist/thickness for real gust stiffness, at the proven-safe 36/42 sweep pairing, to test whether authentic structural margin (not just arm-length) is what unlocks past the storm plateau.
- g31 `15ac485d` fitness 6.531 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family shares a short-arm/high-disk-loading, zero-wedge, near-stock-sweep floor-mass build that keeps storm at 4.72+; this pivot abandons short arms for a genuinely low-disk-loading long-arm geometry (1.28, validated valid territory) while simultaneously pulling both sweeps to their tightest safe margin (32/37) for minimum frontal profile and adding max battery wedge (15deg) with 
- g31 `8180dd97` fitness 6.302 Wh/km-agg — was: Every previous material pivot bolted heavy over-compensation (max thickness, relaxed waist, wider width) onto a material change and always lost to the mass penalty; this instead pairs PET-CF (material 0.40) with the elite's proven low-stress short-arm geometry and only minimal thickness/width/waist nudges above the printed-material validity floor, testing whether toughness alone -- without brute s
- g31 `cbb51c89` fitness 6.622 Wh/km-agg — was: Real structural stiffness margin (width+waist+thickness raised together) and battery-wedge frontal-area reduction have each been isolated separately and both lost to a single-axis mass penalty, but never combined at the proven short-arm/stock-sweep baseline; this pivot stacks a genuine (not extreme) stiffness bump with max wedge and max deck_gap to test whether jointly attacking storm's structural
- g32 `396bda91` fitness 6.359 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate pure deck/stack rigidity by committing real plate_thickness_scale (1.2, still carbon) and max deck_gap while holding every arm gene at the proven elite floor and stock sweep pairing -- every prior stiffness pivot bundled arm width/waist increases with the thickness bump and lost to the combined mass penalty, so this tests whether deck stiffness alone, not arm stiffness, is what storm actua
- g32 `e355e5e9` fitness 6.685 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior tough-material pivot (ASA/PA12-CF/PET-CF) has been tested at zero battery wedge and every wedge pivot has been tested only with long arms, so this combines a validated ASA build (material=0.9, thickness/waist/width well past prior tip-deflection failure points, plate_thickness_scale=1.0 margin) with max battery wedge and its validated clearance deck_gap, at the safe stock-adjacent 36/4
- g33 `17af4a9e` fitness 6.229 Wh/km-agg — was: Every past battery-wedge test bundled the frontal-area cut with longer arms or a material swap and lost to that confound; this applies max battery_wedge (15deg) with the wedge-clearance deck_gap (0.043) directly onto the otherwise-untouched elite floor-mass short-arm carbon baseline to finally isolate whether frontal-area reduction alone beats 6.144.
- g33 `569ca6a7` fitness 6.256 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate a modest (not extreme) arm-length increase alone at the exact validated elite baseline — every prior long-arm pivot jumped straight to 1.28-1.32 and lost to the mass/moment penalty, so this tests whether a mild disk-loading reduction (1.08, still well clear of tip-overlap since longer arms only add separation) pays off without that penalty.
- g33 `ad807299` fitness 6.183 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate a moderate battery wedge alone on the exact validated elite geometry with a touch more deck_gap for wedge clearance — every prior wedge test bundled it with long arms or extra plate thickness, so this checks whether frontal-area reduction pays off on its own without that compounded mass cost.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 26, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 17, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 24, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 27, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.01 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.20 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.60 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.19 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 11 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 PIVOTAL designs that abandon that trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space. Do NOT refine the elites — a pivot that lands near them is a wasted round. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 32e907f6 — Every symmetric wide-sweep pivot has failed either on tongue-bolt geometry or fitness, but decoupled front/rear sweep has never been tried; this keeps the front tight near true stock (32 deg, avoiding frontal-area cost) while opening only the rear sweep (48 deg) for better rear-rotor separation, with generous plate growth (1.28/1.20, well beyond the 1.15/1.13 that previously still failed at 42/48)flew at 6.441 Wh/km
candidate c76d7cce — Every past pivot pushed a lever to its floor or its extreme (min-mass elite vs. maxed-out width/waist/thickness/wedge attempts) and all the extremes lost, but a uniformly moderate build across arm length, width, waist, thickness, plate margin and wedge has never been tested as a combination -- this isolates whether real-but-restrained margin on every axis at once (rather than one axis pushed hard)flew at 6.814 Wh/km
candidate 6d24a438 — Every prior long-arm pivot kept the elite's off-stock 36/42 sweep and lost to the added mass/moment penalty; this instead pairs a moderate arm-length increase (1.15, for lower disk loading) with the true stock sweep (31.4/36) rather than the elite's swept-forward geometry, keeping width/waist/thickness and plate scale at the floor-mass carbon baseline to test whether stock sweep removes the tongueflew at 6.243 Wh/km
candidate 1ebe8a8f — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — Every prior short-arm test stopped at 0.83-0.92, never approaching the true 0.75 floor; this pushes arm_length_scale to 0.76 (below all tested elites) while opening both sweeps modestly (38/44 vs the elite's 36/42) to preserve rotor tip clearance at the shorter arm, isolating whether there is still uncaptured mass savings below the elite's tested floor.
candidate 227f7de6 — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — PA12-CF has only ever been paired with either the elite's short-arm floor-thickness shape or bundled with arm-length changes; this instead pairs a moderate (not extreme) PA12-CF reinforcement with a genuinely wide splayed stance (front 42/rear 48, plate scale grown to match) to test whether toughness plus a wider structural footprint -- rather than toughness plus arm length -- is the missing combi
candidate 95cddee0 — rejected pre-flight (plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)) — Max battery wedge has only ever been tested with long arms or extra plate thickness, and tight sweep has only been tested bundled with long arms too; this stacks max wedge (15deg) with a tight, near-stock sweep (32/37) at the validated 0.87 elite arm length to attack frontal area from wedge and silhouette simultaneously without the long-arm mass penalty that sank every prior wedge pivot.

b5fd89cd1e22

6.144 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.24
cold_headwind	3.91
crosswind	3.77
gusty_light	3.62
hot_thin	3.46
storm	4.72

4a0fbfe92906

6.154 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.25
cold_headwind	3.91
crosswind	3.77
gusty_light	3.63
hot_thin	3.47
storm	4.72

80224a35b8a9

6.156 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.25
cold_headwind	3.92
crosswind	3.78
gusty_light	3.63
hot_thin	3.47
storm	4.72

7b1e1208a985

6.163 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.25
cold_headwind	3.93
crosswind	3.78
gusty_light	3.63
hot_thin	3.47
storm	4.73

25de790024cd

6.175 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.27
cold_headwind	3.93
crosswind	3.78
gusty_light	3.64
hot_thin	3.48
storm	4.74

6ef8e9a50f44

6.177 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.27
cold_headwind	3.93
crosswind	3.79
gusty_light	3.64
hot_thin	3.48
storm	4.74

4f7255f5364a

6.198 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.27
cold_headwind	3.95
crosswind	3.80
gusty_light	3.65
hot_thin	3.49
storm	4.76

ae82993fbbe5

6.201 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.27
cold_headwind	3.95
crosswind	3.80
gusty_light	3.66
hot_thin	3.49
storm	4.76

59d0332caef0

6.213 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.28
cold_headwind	3.96
crosswind	3.81
gusty_light	3.66
hot_thin	3.50
storm	4.77

6d24a438dc8f

6.243 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.28
cold_headwind	3.98
crosswind	3.84
gusty_light	3.68
hot_thin	3.50
storm	4.79

32e907f6be9c

6.441 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.39
cold_headwind	4.12
crosswind	3.96
gusty_light	3.79
hot_thin	3.61
storm	4.94

c76d7cceb5c2

6.814 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.58
cold_headwind	4.37
crosswind	4.19
gusty_light	4.01
hot_thin	3.82
storm	5.23

7efa9766f91d

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

97e678f2b788

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

0b2c801ccdc3

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

785f21da626a

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

generation 33

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 3 design(s) injected, 2 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	4
pivot crosses (far parent)	7

mutation σ 0.066 of gene range
pivot σ 0.105 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 33 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.75..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.55..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.004..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.7..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257, g21 6.257, g22 6.172, g23 6.165, g24 6.144, g25 6.144, g26 6.144, g27 6.144, g28 6.144, g29 6.144, g30 6.144, g31 6.144, g32 6.144 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 10 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.144 Wh/km-agg, frame 82 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.83, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.0, "plate_length_scale": 1.02, "plate_width_scale": 1.02, "deck_gap": 0.04, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.05} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.24, "cold_headwind": 3.91, "crosswind": 3.77, "gusty_light": 3.62, "hot_thin": 3.46, "storm": 4.72}
fitness 6.156 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8387, "arm_width_scale": 0.7689, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 35.2658, "rear_sweep_deg": 41.9791, "plate_length_scale": 1.0199, "plate_width_scale": 0.989, "deck_gap": 0.0429, "battery_wedge_deg": 3.5814, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7054, "material": 0.0354} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.25, "cold_headwind": 3.92, "crosswind": 3.78, "gusty_light": 3.63, "hot_thin": 3.47, "storm": 4.72}
fitness 6.160 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8654, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 41.6897, "plate_length_scale": 1.002, "plate_width_scale": 1.02, "deck_gap": 0.0423, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7107, "material": 0.05} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.25, "cold_headwind": 3.92, "crosswind": 3.78, "gusty_light": 3.63, "hot_thin": 3.46, "storm": 4.73}
fitness 6.160 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8651, "arm_width_scale": 0.7551, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0328, "rear_sweep_deg": 41.6365, "plate_length_scale": 1.0062, "plate_width_scale": 1.0182, "deck_gap": 0.0418, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.551, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7007, "material": 0.0358} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.25, "cold_headwind": 3.92, "crosswind": 3.78, "gusty_light": 3.63, "hot_thin": 3.47, "storm": 4.73}
fitness 6.162 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8317, "arm_width_scale": 0.7759, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 42.131, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.0871, "plate_length_scale": 1.0163, "plate_width_scale": 1.0342, "deck_gap": 0.0403, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7141, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.26, "cold_headwind": 3.92, "crosswind": 3.77, "gusty_light": 3.63, "hot_thin": 3.47, "storm": 4.73}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g26 `6125754b` fitness 6.355 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior waist pivot bundled the waist change with a root-width increase and always lost to the combined mass penalty or triggered resonance; this isolates the mid-shaft taper alone by keeping arm_width_scale at the elite floor (0.75) and removing the pinch (arm_waist_scale raised to 1.00, well short of the 1.2+ combos that previously failed) with only a token thickness nudge for safety, testin
- g26 `8cfdbc77` fitness 6.711 Wh/km-agg — was: Every material pivot away from carbon has failed validity or scored worse because each only over-compensated one axis at a time; this abandons carbon outright for PET-CF (material=0.40) while applying every lesson learned at once - thickness raised well past every previous tip-deflection failure point (0.007), waist relaxed to remove the pinch resonance node (0.85), width nudged up for margin (0.8
- g26 `d1bffb11` fitness 6.358 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family shares maximal arm_length compression (0.83-0.92, far below the 1.35 ceiling) - every mass lever has been squeezed on that axis but disk-loading itself has never been isolated, so push arm_length_scale to 1.30 (longer arms only increase rotor separation, so tip-overlap risk drops rather than rises) while holding every other gene at the proven floor-mass carbon values to tes
- g27 `1b980041` fitness 6.324 Wh/km-agg — was: Long arm_length has only ever been tested bundled with a waist change and elite-adjacent sweep (scored worse at 6.358), never paired with genuinely tight, near-floor sweep on both axes -- this isolates true low-disk-loading, minimum-frontal-profile geometry by pushing arm_length to 1.32 while pulling sweep close to the stock minimum (32/36, with a small buffer off the true 30/34 floor to avoid ton
- g27 `38fcbadb` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Every prior material pivot bolted single-axis compensation (thickness alone, or thickness+waist) onto the elite's short-arm/near-stock-sweep carbon shape and always lost; this instead rebuilds proportions from scratch around untested PETG (material 0.75) with arms genuinely elongated (1.05, cutting disk loading) plus simultaneously widened (0.85) and de-pinched (waist 0.85) for real stiffness marg
- g27 `71f4f5ad` fitness 6.333 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family shares narrow near-stock sweep (36/42) paired with short arms (0.83-0.92) -- a minimum-frontal-profile, minimum-disk-loading compromise that has plateaued storm at 4.72-4.75; this pivot commits fully to the opposite side of that tradeoff by combining short arms (0.85, near the validated tip-clearance floor) with a genuinely wide splayed sweep (front 44, rear 50, plate scale
- g28 `029bbd03` fitness 6.771 Wh/km-agg — was: Same long-arm low-disk-loading pivot as the failed design, but instead of pairing it with a wide 42/48 sweep that missed the main plate, hold sweep at the proven-valid 36/42 elite pairing (already validated with arm_length_scale=1.30 in frame d1bffb11) and only modestly grow plate scale (1.05/1.05) to buffer the wider/de-pinched root against the width and waist stiffness increase.
- g28 `b154ee08` fitness 6.451 Wh/km-agg — was: Same max-battery-wedge frontal-area reduction test at near-stock sweep, but raise arm_length_scale from 0.85 to 1.15 (past the previously-validated clearance fix of 1.1) to restore rotor tip separation instead of letting the short arms overlap.
- g28 `ff31eeb4` fitness 6.746 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior tough-material pivot (ASA/PA12-CF/PET-CF/PETG) kept the elite's short, near-stock-sweep arm proportions and either under-compensated or still lost, so this pivot pairs a fully committed ASA build (material 0.9, arm_thickness well past every past tip-deflection failure point, waist and width both relaxed, plate_thickness_scale at a full 1.0 margin above the printed-material floor) with 
- g29 `093c1d4d` fitness 6.376 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior PA12-CF/PET-CF/ASA/PETG pivot stacked its material compensation onto longer or wider arms and always lost to the combined mass penalty; keep the arm at the validated short, low-moment floor (0.85) with only a moderate width/waist/thickness bump and the minimum printed-material plate floor (0.9) to test whether a genuinely short-arm PA12-CF build is the missing configuration that makes 
- g29 `3edd371f` fitness 6.391 Wh/km-agg — was: Same splayed-sweep, short-arm frontal-area pivot, but pull both sweeps back 2 deg and add far more plate-scale margin (1.22/1.20 vs 1.15/1.12) plus trim arm_width to 0.82 to shrink the tongue footprint, since the prior attempt's margin wasn't enough to keep the tongue bolts on the main plate.
- g29 `ec933900` fitness 6.460 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family sits at zero battery wedge with short 0.83-0.92 arms, so the two frontal-area/induced-power levers that each hit ~6.35-6.37 in isolation have never been combined; pair long arms (1.30, previously validated for tip clearance at stock sweep) with max battery wedge (15) and the wedge-clearance deck_gap (0.043) to test whether lower disk loading plus reduced frontal area jointl
- g30 `61158ead` fitness 6.829 Wh/km-agg — was: Combine long-arm low disk loading with max battery wedge and max deck_gap for frontal-area reduction, plus a real deck-stiffness bump - an aero+clearance+stiffness combo never tested together (prior wedge+arm-length tests kept plate_thickness at the floor), at the same proven 36/42 sweep pairing.
- g30 `815bffc7` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Every material pivot away from carbon so far paired its compensation with the elite's short-arm shape and lost; this pairs long arms (lower disk loading, more distributed load path) with real thickness/width margin for genuine PETG toughness, testing whether the material only wins in a different geometric family.
- g30 `9f871c62` fitness 7.393 Wh/km-agg — was: Every current elite shares floor-mass arm width/waist/thickness bundled with short arms; this pivot fully commits to the opposite corner - long arms for low disk loading plus genuinely reinforced width/waist/thickness for real gust stiffness, at the proven-safe 36/42 sweep pairing, to test whether authentic structural margin (not just arm-length) is what unlocks past the storm plateau.
- g31 `15ac485d` fitness 6.531 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family shares a short-arm/high-disk-loading, zero-wedge, near-stock-sweep floor-mass build that keeps storm at 4.72+; this pivot abandons short arms for a genuinely low-disk-loading long-arm geometry (1.28, validated valid territory) while simultaneously pulling both sweeps to their tightest safe margin (32/37) for minimum frontal profile and adding max battery wedge (15deg) with 
- g31 `8180dd97` fitness 6.302 Wh/km-agg — was: Every previous material pivot bolted heavy over-compensation (max thickness, relaxed waist, wider width) onto a material change and always lost to the mass penalty; this instead pairs PET-CF (material 0.40) with the elite's proven low-stress short-arm geometry and only minimal thickness/width/waist nudges above the printed-material validity floor, testing whether toughness alone -- without brute s
- g31 `cbb51c89` fitness 6.622 Wh/km-agg — was: Real structural stiffness margin (width+waist+thickness raised together) and battery-wedge frontal-area reduction have each been isolated separately and both lost to a single-axis mass penalty, but never combined at the proven short-arm/stock-sweep baseline; this pivot stacks a genuine (not extreme) stiffness bump with max wedge and max deck_gap to test whether jointly attacking storm's structural
- g32 `396bda91` fitness 6.359 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate pure deck/stack rigidity by committing real plate_thickness_scale (1.2, still carbon) and max deck_gap while holding every arm gene at the proven elite floor and stock sweep pairing -- every prior stiffness pivot bundled arm width/waist increases with the thickness bump and lost to the combined mass penalty, so this tests whether deck stiffness alone, not arm stiffness, is what storm actua
- g32 `e355e5e9` fitness 6.685 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior tough-material pivot (ASA/PA12-CF/PET-CF) has been tested at zero battery wedge and every wedge pivot has been tested only with long arms, so this combines a validated ASA build (material=0.9, thickness/waist/width well past prior tip-deflection failure points, plate_thickness_scale=1.0 margin) with max battery wedge and its validated clearance deck_gap, at the safe stock-adjacent 36/4

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 25, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 17, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 22, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 26, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.01 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.20 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.60 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.19 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 10 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 PIVOTAL designs that abandon that trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space. Do NOT refine the elites — a pivot that lands near them is a wasted round. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 17af4a9e — Every past battery-wedge test bundled the frontal-area cut with longer arms or a material swap and lost to that confound; this applies max battery_wedge (15deg) with the wedge-clearance deck_gap (0.043) directly onto the otherwise-untouched elite floor-mass short-arm carbon baseline to finally isolate whether frontal-area reduction alone beats 6.144.flew at 6.229 Wh/km
candidate 569ca6a7 — Isolate a modest (not extreme) arm-length increase alone at the exact validated elite baseline — every prior long-arm pivot jumped straight to 1.28-1.32 and lost to the mass/moment penalty, so this tests whether a mild disk-loading reduction (1.08, still well clear of tip-overlap since longer arms only add separation) pays off without that penalty.flew at 6.256 Wh/km
candidate ad807299 — Isolate a moderate battery wedge alone on the exact validated elite geometry with a touch more deck_gap for wedge clearance — every prior wedge test bundled it with long arms or extra plate thickness, so this checks whether frontal-area reduction pays off on its own without that compounded mass cost.flew at 6.183 Wh/km
candidate 716b1e77 — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Every past pivot only ever tested arm_length_scale longer than the elite's 0.83-0.92 band (all of which lost on induced power), never shorter; this pushes to 0.78 -- below any previously tested value -- at otherwise-identical elite floor-mass geometry to test whether further mass reduction beats the higher disk loading.
candidate 406aa735 — rejected pre-flight (rotor too close to deck/battery) — Deck_gap has sat at 0.04-0.043 in every elite and pivot to date purely as wedge-clearance overhead, but its own mass/drag cost in isolation has never been tested; pull it to 0.028 (just above the 0.023 FC-stack floor, well clear of the 'rotor too close to deck' failure margin) at otherwise-identical elite geometry with zero wedge to isolate the standoff-length lever alone.

b5fd89cd1e22

6.144 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.24
cold_headwind	3.91
crosswind	3.77
gusty_light	3.62
hot_thin	3.46
storm	4.72

80224a35b8a9

6.156 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.25
cold_headwind	3.92
crosswind	3.78
gusty_light	3.63
hot_thin	3.47
storm	4.72

6ee9d05adace

6.158 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.25
cold_headwind	3.92
crosswind	3.78
gusty_light	3.63
hot_thin	3.47
storm	4.72

2d9fa0a61d91

6.165 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.26
cold_headwind	3.93
crosswind	3.78
gusty_light	3.64
hot_thin	3.47
storm	4.73

5e1beb9c34c3

6.166 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.26
cold_headwind	3.92
crosswind	3.78
gusty_light	3.64
hot_thin	3.47
storm	4.73

ad807299c4ea

6.183 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.27
cold_headwind	3.94
crosswind	3.80
gusty_light	3.65
hot_thin	3.48
storm	4.74

17af4a9ef561

6.229 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.29
cold_headwind	3.98
crosswind	3.82
gusty_light	3.67
hot_thin	3.50
storm	4.78

569ca6a7ac96

6.256 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.29
cold_headwind	4.00
crosswind	3.84
gusty_light	3.69
hot_thin	3.51
storm	4.80

97ab5e513af7

6.575 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.46
cold_headwind	4.21
crosswind	4.03
gusty_light	3.87
hot_thin	3.69
storm	5.05

73cdfee975b7

6.732 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.50
cold_headwind	4.39
crosswind	4.14
gusty_light	3.95
hot_thin	3.73
storm	5.17

6f086649a134

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

486e7c057cea

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)

22436f68f052

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

bb38d8a3bb00

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

6a069e77c36c

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

d1a9bb636e7e

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

generation 32

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 2 design(s) injected, 3 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	2
crossovers (tournament parents)	5
pivot crosses (far parent)	7

mutation σ 0.068 of gene range
pivot σ 0.109 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 32 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.75..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.55..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.004..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.7..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257, g21 6.257, g22 6.172, g23 6.165, g24 6.144, g25 6.144, g26 6.144, g27 6.144, g28 6.144, g29 6.144, g30 6.144, g31 6.144 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 9 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.144 Wh/km-agg, frame 82 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.83, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.0, "plate_length_scale": 1.02, "plate_width_scale": 1.02, "deck_gap": 0.04, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.05} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.24, "cold_headwind": 3.91, "crosswind": 3.77, "gusty_light": 3.62, "hot_thin": 3.46, "storm": 4.72}
fitness 6.156 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8387, "arm_width_scale": 0.7689, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 35.2658, "rear_sweep_deg": 41.9791, "plate_length_scale": 1.0199, "plate_width_scale": 0.989, "deck_gap": 0.0429, "battery_wedge_deg": 3.5814, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7054, "material": 0.0354} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.25, "cold_headwind": 3.92, "crosswind": 3.78, "gusty_light": 3.63, "hot_thin": 3.47, "storm": 4.72}
fitness 6.160 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8654, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 41.6897, "plate_length_scale": 1.002, "plate_width_scale": 1.02, "deck_gap": 0.0423, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7107, "material": 0.05} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.25, "cold_headwind": 3.92, "crosswind": 3.78, "gusty_light": 3.63, "hot_thin": 3.46, "storm": 4.73}
fitness 6.160 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8651, "arm_width_scale": 0.7551, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0328, "rear_sweep_deg": 41.6365, "plate_length_scale": 1.0062, "plate_width_scale": 1.0182, "deck_gap": 0.0418, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.551, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7007, "material": 0.0358} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.25, "cold_headwind": 3.92, "crosswind": 3.78, "gusty_light": 3.63, "hot_thin": 3.47, "storm": 4.73}
fitness 6.165 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8841, "arm_width_scale": 0.7766, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 35.7361, "rear_sweep_deg": 41.2361, "plate_length_scale": 1.02, "plate_width_scale": 1.0182, "deck_gap": 0.0373, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.5978, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1232} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.25, "cold_headwind": 3.93, "crosswind": 3.78, "gusty_light": 3.64, "hot_thin": 3.47, "storm": 4.73}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g24 `a5e05228` fitness 6.360 Wh/km-agg — was: Decouple root stiffness from tip drag by moderately widening only the arm root (arm_width_scale=0.95) while keeping the waist at the proven floor (0.55) for a tapered thick-root/thin-tip profile -- every prior stiffness pivot widened width AND waist together and always lost, so this isolates root-only reinforcement against storm gust torque without the uniform-width mass/drag penalty.
- g24 `b5fd89cd` fitness 6.144 Wh/km-agg — was: Same short-arm, high-disk-loading pivot as the failed design, but raise arm_length_scale from 0.76 to 0.83 (still shorter than every current elite's floor of 0.884) to restore rotor-tip clearance at this sweep, keeping width/waist/thickness/sweep/plate/deck_gap/material identical to isolate exactly how short the arms can go before disk overlap trumps mass savings.
- g26 `6125754b` fitness 6.355 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior waist pivot bundled the waist change with a root-width increase and always lost to the combined mass penalty or triggered resonance; this isolates the mid-shaft taper alone by keeping arm_width_scale at the elite floor (0.75) and removing the pinch (arm_waist_scale raised to 1.00, well short of the 1.2+ combos that previously failed) with only a token thickness nudge for safety, testin
- g26 `8cfdbc77` fitness 6.711 Wh/km-agg — was: Every material pivot away from carbon has failed validity or scored worse because each only over-compensated one axis at a time; this abandons carbon outright for PET-CF (material=0.40) while applying every lesson learned at once - thickness raised well past every previous tip-deflection failure point (0.007), waist relaxed to remove the pinch resonance node (0.85), width nudged up for margin (0.8
- g26 `d1bffb11` fitness 6.358 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family shares maximal arm_length compression (0.83-0.92, far below the 1.35 ceiling) - every mass lever has been squeezed on that axis but disk-loading itself has never been isolated, so push arm_length_scale to 1.30 (longer arms only increase rotor separation, so tip-overlap risk drops rather than rises) while holding every other gene at the proven floor-mass carbon values to tes
- g27 `1b980041` fitness 6.324 Wh/km-agg — was: Long arm_length has only ever been tested bundled with a waist change and elite-adjacent sweep (scored worse at 6.358), never paired with genuinely tight, near-floor sweep on both axes -- this isolates true low-disk-loading, minimum-frontal-profile geometry by pushing arm_length to 1.32 while pulling sweep close to the stock minimum (32/36, with a small buffer off the true 30/34 floor to avoid ton
- g27 `38fcbadb` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Every prior material pivot bolted single-axis compensation (thickness alone, or thickness+waist) onto the elite's short-arm/near-stock-sweep carbon shape and always lost; this instead rebuilds proportions from scratch around untested PETG (material 0.75) with arms genuinely elongated (1.05, cutting disk loading) plus simultaneously widened (0.85) and de-pinched (waist 0.85) for real stiffness marg
- g27 `71f4f5ad` fitness 6.333 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family shares narrow near-stock sweep (36/42) paired with short arms (0.83-0.92) -- a minimum-frontal-profile, minimum-disk-loading compromise that has plateaued storm at 4.72-4.75; this pivot commits fully to the opposite side of that tradeoff by combining short arms (0.85, near the validated tip-clearance floor) with a genuinely wide splayed sweep (front 44, rear 50, plate scale
- g28 `029bbd03` fitness 6.771 Wh/km-agg — was: Same long-arm low-disk-loading pivot as the failed design, but instead of pairing it with a wide 42/48 sweep that missed the main plate, hold sweep at the proven-valid 36/42 elite pairing (already validated with arm_length_scale=1.30 in frame d1bffb11) and only modestly grow plate scale (1.05/1.05) to buffer the wider/de-pinched root against the width and waist stiffness increase.
- g28 `b154ee08` fitness 6.451 Wh/km-agg — was: Same max-battery-wedge frontal-area reduction test at near-stock sweep, but raise arm_length_scale from 0.85 to 1.15 (past the previously-validated clearance fix of 1.1) to restore rotor tip separation instead of letting the short arms overlap.
- g28 `ff31eeb4` fitness 6.746 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior tough-material pivot (ASA/PA12-CF/PET-CF/PETG) kept the elite's short, near-stock-sweep arm proportions and either under-compensated or still lost, so this pivot pairs a fully committed ASA build (material 0.9, arm_thickness well past every past tip-deflection failure point, waist and width both relaxed, plate_thickness_scale at a full 1.0 margin above the printed-material floor) with 
- g29 `093c1d4d` fitness 6.376 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior PA12-CF/PET-CF/ASA/PETG pivot stacked its material compensation onto longer or wider arms and always lost to the combined mass penalty; keep the arm at the validated short, low-moment floor (0.85) with only a moderate width/waist/thickness bump and the minimum printed-material plate floor (0.9) to test whether a genuinely short-arm PA12-CF build is the missing configuration that makes 
- g29 `3edd371f` fitness 6.391 Wh/km-agg — was: Same splayed-sweep, short-arm frontal-area pivot, but pull both sweeps back 2 deg and add far more plate-scale margin (1.22/1.20 vs 1.15/1.12) plus trim arm_width to 0.82 to shrink the tongue footprint, since the prior attempt's margin wasn't enough to keep the tongue bolts on the main plate.
- g29 `ec933900` fitness 6.460 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family sits at zero battery wedge with short 0.83-0.92 arms, so the two frontal-area/induced-power levers that each hit ~6.35-6.37 in isolation have never been combined; pair long arms (1.30, previously validated for tip clearance at stock sweep) with max battery wedge (15) and the wedge-clearance deck_gap (0.043) to test whether lower disk loading plus reduced frontal area jointl
- g30 `61158ead` fitness 6.829 Wh/km-agg — was: Combine long-arm low disk loading with max battery wedge and max deck_gap for frontal-area reduction, plus a real deck-stiffness bump - an aero+clearance+stiffness combo never tested together (prior wedge+arm-length tests kept plate_thickness at the floor), at the same proven 36/42 sweep pairing.
- g30 `815bffc7` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Every material pivot away from carbon so far paired its compensation with the elite's short-arm shape and lost; this pairs long arms (lower disk loading, more distributed load path) with real thickness/width margin for genuine PETG toughness, testing whether the material only wins in a different geometric family.
- g30 `9f871c62` fitness 7.393 Wh/km-agg — was: Every current elite shares floor-mass arm width/waist/thickness bundled with short arms; this pivot fully commits to the opposite corner - long arms for low disk loading plus genuinely reinforced width/waist/thickness for real gust stiffness, at the proven-safe 36/42 sweep pairing, to test whether authentic structural margin (not just arm-length) is what unlocks past the storm plateau.
- g31 `15ac485d` fitness 6.531 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family shares a short-arm/high-disk-loading, zero-wedge, near-stock-sweep floor-mass build that keeps storm at 4.72+; this pivot abandons short arms for a genuinely low-disk-loading long-arm geometry (1.28, validated valid territory) while simultaneously pulling both sweeps to their tightest safe margin (32/37) for minimum frontal profile and adding max battery wedge (15deg) with 
- g31 `8180dd97` fitness 6.302 Wh/km-agg — was: Every previous material pivot bolted heavy over-compensation (max thickness, relaxed waist, wider width) onto a material change and always lost to the mass penalty; this instead pairs PET-CF (material 0.40) with the elite's proven low-stress short-arm geometry and only minimal thickness/width/waist nudges above the printed-material validity floor, testing whether toughness alone -- without brute s
- g31 `cbb51c89` fitness 6.622 Wh/km-agg — was: Real structural stiffness margin (width+waist+thickness raised together) and battery-wedge frontal-area reduction have each been isolated separately and both lost to a single-axis mass penalty, but never combined at the proven short-arm/stock-sweep baseline; this pivot stacks a genuine (not extreme) stiffness bump with max wedge and max deck_gap to test whether jointly attacking storm's structural

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 23, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 17, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 21, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 26, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 15, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.01 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.20 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.60 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.19 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 9 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 PIVOTAL designs that abandon that trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space. Do NOT refine the elites — a pivot that lands near them is a wasted round. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 396bda91 — Isolate pure deck/stack rigidity by committing real plate_thickness_scale (1.2, still carbon) and max deck_gap while holding every arm gene at the proven elite floor and stock sweep pairing -- every prior stiffness pivot bundled arm width/waist increases with the thickness bump and lost to the combined mass penalty, so this tests whether deck stiffness alone, not arm stiffness, is what storm actuaflew at 6.359 Wh/km
candidate e355e5e9 — Every prior tough-material pivot (ASA/PA12-CF/PET-CF) has been tested at zero battery wedge and every wedge pivot has been tested only with long arms, so this combines a validated ASA build (material=0.9, thickness/waist/width well past prior tip-deflection failure points, plate_thickness_scale=1.0 margin) with max battery wedge and its validated clearance deck_gap, at the safe stock-adjacent 36/4flew at 6.685 Wh/km
candidate a6e32f27 — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — Combine long-arm low disk loading with a wide splayed sweep for reduced frontal profile, while holding width/waist/thickness/material at the absolute floor-mass values -- every prior long-arm test paired it with stiffness/wedge additions (mass penalty) and every prior wide-splay test paired it with short arms only, so this is the first genuinely floor-mass long-arm+splay combination, testing wheth
candidate 1d0315b3 — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Invert the elite family's front<rear sweep asymmetry (front pushed wide, rear tucked near stock) at the validated short-arm floor-mass geometry -- every prior sweep pivot moved both sweeps in the same direction together, so this isolates whether front-loaded splay (an untested asymmetry direction) changes gust/crosswind response without the mass cost of a symmetric wide splay.
candidate d5c45188 — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — Real structural margin (width+waist+thickness raised together) has only ever been tested bundled with battery wedge, never in isolation; this isolates genuine stiffness reinforcement against storm gust torque at carbon floor mass, paired with only a modest +2deg sweep splay beyond the elite's 36/42 (well inside the safe stock-buffer with proportional plate growth) and a slight arm-length bump for

b5fd89cd1e22

6.144 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.24
cold_headwind	3.91
crosswind	3.77
gusty_light	3.62
hot_thin	3.46
storm	4.72

80224a35b8a9

6.156 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.25
cold_headwind	3.92
crosswind	3.78
gusty_light	3.63
hot_thin	3.47
storm	4.72

89b92a51a1d5

6.162 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.26
cold_headwind	3.92
crosswind	3.77
gusty_light	3.63
hot_thin	3.47
storm	4.73

b2f3b2e99a18

6.177 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.26
cold_headwind	3.94
crosswind	3.79
gusty_light	3.64
hot_thin	3.47
storm	4.74

25489c5c4184

6.183 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.26
cold_headwind	3.94
crosswind	3.80
gusty_light	3.65
hot_thin	3.48
storm	4.74

63ee905eb117

6.299 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.31
cold_headwind	4.02
crosswind	3.87
gusty_light	3.71
hot_thin	3.54
storm	4.83

396bda910391

6.359 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.35
cold_headwind	4.05
crosswind	3.90
gusty_light	3.75
hot_thin	3.58
storm	4.88

e03f89ef0ba9

6.480 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.42
cold_headwind	4.13
crosswind	3.98
gusty_light	3.82
hot_thin	3.64
storm	4.97

0db573fd2915

6.534 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.43
cold_headwind	4.22
crosswind	4.01
gusty_light	3.84
hot_thin	3.65
storm	5.01

479db986ecaa

6.562 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	4.22
crosswind	4.02
gusty_light	3.86
hot_thin	3.67
storm	5.04

e355e5e9089c

6.685 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.49
cold_headwind	4.34
crosswind	4.12
gusty_light	3.93
hot_thin	3.71
storm	5.13

2897b1d60ad2

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)

ee00db1192ac

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

b428d18d0ae0

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

9bc484a7f9a2

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

8c09d409b60d

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

generation 31

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 3 design(s) injected

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	4
pivot crosses (far parent)	7

mutation σ 0.070 of gene range
pivot σ 0.112 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 31 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.75..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.55..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.004..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.7..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257, g21 6.257, g22 6.172, g23 6.165, g24 6.144, g25 6.144, g26 6.144, g27 6.144, g28 6.144, g29 6.144, g30 6.144 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 8 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.144 Wh/km-agg, frame 82 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.83, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.0, "plate_length_scale": 1.02, "plate_width_scale": 1.02, "deck_gap": 0.04, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.05} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.24, "cold_headwind": 3.91, "crosswind": 3.77, "gusty_light": 3.62, "hot_thin": 3.46, "storm": 4.72}
fitness 6.160 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8654, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 41.6897, "plate_length_scale": 1.002, "plate_width_scale": 1.02, "deck_gap": 0.0423, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7107, "material": 0.05} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.25, "cold_headwind": 3.92, "crosswind": 3.78, "gusty_light": 3.63, "hot_thin": 3.46, "storm": 4.73}
fitness 6.160 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8651, "arm_width_scale": 0.7551, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0328, "rear_sweep_deg": 41.6365, "plate_length_scale": 1.0062, "plate_width_scale": 1.0182, "deck_gap": 0.0418, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.551, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7007, "material": 0.0358} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.25, "cold_headwind": 3.92, "crosswind": 3.78, "gusty_light": 3.63, "hot_thin": 3.47, "storm": 4.73}
fitness 6.165 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8841, "arm_width_scale": 0.7766, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 35.7361, "rear_sweep_deg": 41.2361, "plate_length_scale": 1.02, "plate_width_scale": 1.0182, "deck_gap": 0.0373, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.5978, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1232} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.25, "cold_headwind": 3.93, "crosswind": 3.78, "gusty_light": 3.64, "hot_thin": 3.47, "storm": 4.73}
fitness 6.167 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.83, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.6246, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.0, "plate_length_scale": 1.02, "plate_width_scale": 1.02, "deck_gap": 0.04, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.25, "cold_headwind": 3.93, "crosswind": 3.78, "gusty_light": 3.64, "hot_thin": 3.47, "storm": 4.73}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g22 `6e14487e` fitness 6.737 Wh/km-agg — was: Every previous ASA/PA12-CF/PET-CF/PETG pivot under-compensated on only one axis (thickness alone) and failed validity or scored worse; this fully compensates a tough, damped ASA build simultaneously across arm_thickness (near-max), waist (relaxed to remove the pinch-point resonance node), shortened arm_length (less moment arm), and plate_thickness (well above the printed floor) to give damage-tole
- g22 `8eef9a02` fitness 6.548 Wh/km-agg — was: Prior wide-sweep-plus-wedge attempts always paired a tight front with a wide rear; the reverse asymmetry (wide front, tight rear) shifting the aero center forward, combined with max battery wedge, has never been tested and could better address crosswind/cold_headwind while keeping the proven thin-mass carbon arms untouched.
- g24 `720187ca` fitness 6.204 Wh/km-agg — was: Layer a mild, previously-untested plate_thickness_scale bump (0.85, well below the 1.25-1.35 extremes that always lost to mass penalty) onto elite frame 83's exact proven geometry, isolating whether a small core-stiffness increment trims the storm penalty without the mass cost that sank every prior aggressive core-stiffening attempt.
- g24 `a5e05228` fitness 6.360 Wh/km-agg — was: Decouple root stiffness from tip drag by moderately widening only the arm root (arm_width_scale=0.95) while keeping the waist at the proven floor (0.55) for a tapered thick-root/thin-tip profile -- every prior stiffness pivot widened width AND waist together and always lost, so this isolates root-only reinforcement against storm gust torque without the uniform-width mass/drag penalty.
- g24 `b5fd89cd` fitness 6.144 Wh/km-agg — was: Same short-arm, high-disk-loading pivot as the failed design, but raise arm_length_scale from 0.76 to 0.83 (still shorter than every current elite's floor of 0.884) to restore rotor-tip clearance at this sweep, keeping width/waist/thickness/sweep/plate/deck_gap/material identical to isolate exactly how short the arms can go before disk overlap trumps mass savings.
- g26 `6125754b` fitness 6.355 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior waist pivot bundled the waist change with a root-width increase and always lost to the combined mass penalty or triggered resonance; this isolates the mid-shaft taper alone by keeping arm_width_scale at the elite floor (0.75) and removing the pinch (arm_waist_scale raised to 1.00, well short of the 1.2+ combos that previously failed) with only a token thickness nudge for safety, testin
- g26 `8cfdbc77` fitness 6.711 Wh/km-agg — was: Every material pivot away from carbon has failed validity or scored worse because each only over-compensated one axis at a time; this abandons carbon outright for PET-CF (material=0.40) while applying every lesson learned at once - thickness raised well past every previous tip-deflection failure point (0.007), waist relaxed to remove the pinch resonance node (0.85), width nudged up for margin (0.8
- g26 `d1bffb11` fitness 6.358 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family shares maximal arm_length compression (0.83-0.92, far below the 1.35 ceiling) - every mass lever has been squeezed on that axis but disk-loading itself has never been isolated, so push arm_length_scale to 1.30 (longer arms only increase rotor separation, so tip-overlap risk drops rather than rises) while holding every other gene at the proven floor-mass carbon values to tes
- g27 `1b980041` fitness 6.324 Wh/km-agg — was: Long arm_length has only ever been tested bundled with a waist change and elite-adjacent sweep (scored worse at 6.358), never paired with genuinely tight, near-floor sweep on both axes -- this isolates true low-disk-loading, minimum-frontal-profile geometry by pushing arm_length to 1.32 while pulling sweep close to the stock minimum (32/36, with a small buffer off the true 30/34 floor to avoid ton
- g27 `38fcbadb` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Every prior material pivot bolted single-axis compensation (thickness alone, or thickness+waist) onto the elite's short-arm/near-stock-sweep carbon shape and always lost; this instead rebuilds proportions from scratch around untested PETG (material 0.75) with arms genuinely elongated (1.05, cutting disk loading) plus simultaneously widened (0.85) and de-pinched (waist 0.85) for real stiffness marg
- g27 `71f4f5ad` fitness 6.333 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family shares narrow near-stock sweep (36/42) paired with short arms (0.83-0.92) -- a minimum-frontal-profile, minimum-disk-loading compromise that has plateaued storm at 4.72-4.75; this pivot commits fully to the opposite side of that tradeoff by combining short arms (0.85, near the validated tip-clearance floor) with a genuinely wide splayed sweep (front 44, rear 50, plate scale
- g28 `029bbd03` fitness 6.771 Wh/km-agg — was: Same long-arm low-disk-loading pivot as the failed design, but instead of pairing it with a wide 42/48 sweep that missed the main plate, hold sweep at the proven-valid 36/42 elite pairing (already validated with arm_length_scale=1.30 in frame d1bffb11) and only modestly grow plate scale (1.05/1.05) to buffer the wider/de-pinched root against the width and waist stiffness increase.
- g28 `b154ee08` fitness 6.451 Wh/km-agg — was: Same max-battery-wedge frontal-area reduction test at near-stock sweep, but raise arm_length_scale from 0.85 to 1.15 (past the previously-validated clearance fix of 1.1) to restore rotor tip separation instead of letting the short arms overlap.
- g28 `ff31eeb4` fitness 6.746 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior tough-material pivot (ASA/PA12-CF/PET-CF/PETG) kept the elite's short, near-stock-sweep arm proportions and either under-compensated or still lost, so this pivot pairs a fully committed ASA build (material 0.9, arm_thickness well past every past tip-deflection failure point, waist and width both relaxed, plate_thickness_scale at a full 1.0 margin above the printed-material floor) with 
- g29 `093c1d4d` fitness 6.376 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior PA12-CF/PET-CF/ASA/PETG pivot stacked its material compensation onto longer or wider arms and always lost to the combined mass penalty; keep the arm at the validated short, low-moment floor (0.85) with only a moderate width/waist/thickness bump and the minimum printed-material plate floor (0.9) to test whether a genuinely short-arm PA12-CF build is the missing configuration that makes 
- g29 `3edd371f` fitness 6.391 Wh/km-agg — was: Same splayed-sweep, short-arm frontal-area pivot, but pull both sweeps back 2 deg and add far more plate-scale margin (1.22/1.20 vs 1.15/1.12) plus trim arm_width to 0.82 to shrink the tongue footprint, since the prior attempt's margin wasn't enough to keep the tongue bolts on the main plate.
- g29 `ec933900` fitness 6.460 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family sits at zero battery wedge with short 0.83-0.92 arms, so the two frontal-area/induced-power levers that each hit ~6.35-6.37 in isolation have never been combined; pair long arms (1.30, previously validated for tip clearance at stock sweep) with max battery wedge (15) and the wedge-clearance deck_gap (0.043) to test whether lower disk loading plus reduced frontal area jointl
- g30 `61158ead` fitness 6.829 Wh/km-agg — was: Combine long-arm low disk loading with max battery wedge and max deck_gap for frontal-area reduction, plus a real deck-stiffness bump - an aero+clearance+stiffness combo never tested together (prior wedge+arm-length tests kept plate_thickness at the floor), at the same proven 36/42 sweep pairing.
- g30 `815bffc7` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Every material pivot away from carbon so far paired its compensation with the elite's short-arm shape and lost; this pairs long arms (lower disk loading, more distributed load path) with real thickness/width margin for genuine PETG toughness, testing whether the material only wins in a different geometric family.
- g30 `9f871c62` fitness 7.393 Wh/km-agg — was: Every current elite shares floor-mass arm width/waist/thickness bundled with short arms; this pivot fully commits to the opposite corner - long arms for low disk loading plus genuinely reinforced width/waist/thickness for real gust stiffness, at the proven-safe 36/42 sweep pairing, to test whether authentic structural margin (not just arm-length) is what unlocks past the storm plateau.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 22, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 17, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 19, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 25, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 15, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.01 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.20 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.60 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.19 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 8 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 PIVOTAL designs that abandon that trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space. Do NOT refine the elites — a pivot that lands near them is a wasted round. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 15ac485d — The entire elite family shares a short-arm/high-disk-loading, zero-wedge, near-stock-sweep floor-mass build that keeps storm at 4.72+; this pivot abandons short arms for a genuinely low-disk-loading long-arm geometry (1.28, validated valid territory) while simultaneously pulling both sweeps to their tightest safe margin (32/37) for minimum frontal profile and adding max battery wedge (15deg) with flew at 6.531 Wh/km
candidate 8180dd97 — Every previous material pivot bolted heavy over-compensation (max thickness, relaxed waist, wider width) onto a material change and always lost to the mass penalty; this instead pairs PET-CF (material 0.40) with the elite's proven low-stress short-arm geometry and only minimal thickness/width/waist nudges above the printed-material validity floor, testing whether toughness alone -- without brute sflew at 6.302 Wh/km
candidate cbb51c89 — Real structural stiffness margin (width+waist+thickness raised together) and battery-wedge frontal-area reduction have each been isolated separately and both lost to a single-axis mass penalty, but never combined at the proven short-arm/stock-sweep baseline; this pivot stacks a genuine (not extreme) stiffness bump with max wedge and max deck_gap to test whether jointly attacking storm's structuralflew at 6.622 Wh/km

b5fd89cd1e22

6.144 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.24
cold_headwind	3.91
crosswind	3.77
gusty_light	3.62
hot_thin	3.46
storm	4.72

80224a35b8a9

6.156 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.25
cold_headwind	3.92
crosswind	3.78
gusty_light	3.63
hot_thin	3.47
storm	4.72

bd7c0cc776e5

6.160 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.25
cold_headwind	3.92
crosswind	3.78
gusty_light	3.63
hot_thin	3.46
storm	4.73

774ab485c721

6.170 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.25
cold_headwind	3.94
crosswind	3.79
gusty_light	3.64
hot_thin	3.47
storm	4.74

2a33f72303bb

6.202 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.27
cold_headwind	3.95
crosswind	3.80
gusty_light	3.66
hot_thin	3.49
storm	4.76

8180dd9759e5

6.302 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.31
cold_headwind	4.03
crosswind	3.88
gusty_light	3.71
hot_thin	3.53
storm	4.84

dbe355952720

6.496 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.42
cold_headwind	4.14
crosswind	3.99
gusty_light	3.83
hot_thin	3.65
storm	4.98

15ac485d0093

6.531 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.42
cold_headwind	4.21
crosswind	4.02
gusty_light	3.84
hot_thin	3.65
storm	5.01

93380ffb97df

6.604 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.46
cold_headwind	4.25
crosswind	4.05
gusty_light	3.88
hot_thin	3.69
storm	5.07

cbb51c89c940

6.622 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.49
cold_headwind	4.25
crosswind	4.07
gusty_light	3.90
hot_thin	3.71
storm	5.08

a1bb27682a91

6.732 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.51
cold_headwind	4.37
crosswind	4.14
gusty_light	3.95
hot_thin	3.74
storm	5.17

5a6783da5c02

7.356 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.81
cold_headwind	4.79
crosswind	4.51
gusty_light	4.30
hot_thin	4.07
storm	5.66

e72f6ad32c59

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

9d847a0f53c3

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

9378120bd933

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

399f8cf8b4df

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

generation 30

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 3 design(s) injected, 3 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	2
mutants (single parent)	1
pivot crosses (far parent)	7
random immigrants	1

mutation σ 0.072 of gene range
pivot σ 0.115 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 30 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.75..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.55..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.004..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.7..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257, g21 6.257, g22 6.172, g23 6.165, g24 6.144, g25 6.144, g26 6.144, g27 6.144, g28 6.144, g29 6.144 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 7 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.144 Wh/km-agg, frame 82 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.83, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.0, "plate_length_scale": 1.02, "plate_width_scale": 1.02, "deck_gap": 0.04, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.05} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.24, "cold_headwind": 3.91, "crosswind": 3.77, "gusty_light": 3.62, "hot_thin": 3.46, "storm": 4.72}
fitness 6.160 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8654, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 41.6897, "plate_length_scale": 1.002, "plate_width_scale": 1.02, "deck_gap": 0.0423, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7107, "material": 0.05} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.25, "cold_headwind": 3.92, "crosswind": 3.78, "gusty_light": 3.63, "hot_thin": 3.46, "storm": 4.73}
fitness 6.160 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8651, "arm_width_scale": 0.7551, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0328, "rear_sweep_deg": 41.6365, "plate_length_scale": 1.0062, "plate_width_scale": 1.0182, "deck_gap": 0.0418, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.551, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7007, "material": 0.0358} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.25, "cold_headwind": 3.92, "crosswind": 3.78, "gusty_light": 3.63, "hot_thin": 3.47, "storm": 4.73}
fitness 6.165 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8841, "arm_width_scale": 0.7766, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 35.7361, "rear_sweep_deg": 41.2361, "plate_length_scale": 1.02, "plate_width_scale": 1.0182, "deck_gap": 0.0373, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.5978, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1232} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.25, "cold_headwind": 3.93, "crosswind": 3.78, "gusty_light": 3.64, "hot_thin": 3.47, "storm": 4.73}
fitness 6.167 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.83, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.6246, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.0, "plate_length_scale": 1.02, "plate_width_scale": 1.02, "deck_gap": 0.04, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.25, "cold_headwind": 3.93, "crosswind": 3.78, "gusty_light": 3.64, "hot_thin": 3.47, "storm": 4.73}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g21 `5e6a89c8` fitness 6.504 Wh/km-agg — was: Battery wedge and deck_gap have each been isolated before (both landing worse than elite alone) but never combined; this pivot pushes both to near their maxima together -- generous deck_gap (0.043) giving the max battery tilt (15 deg) safe rotor/battery clearance -- with moderate (not elite-extreme) arm_length_scale (1.15) and stock sweep, testing whether the clearance-vs-wedge interaction unlocks
- g21 `8b5de20a` fitness 8.053 Wh/km-agg — was: Same genuine wide/thick/no-pinch arm stiffness test as the failed design, but the short arm_length_scale=0.85 was shrinking motor separation enough to overlap rotor disks, so arm_length_scale is raised to 1.1 for safe tip clearance, and sweep is nudged off the tongue-collision-prone minimum (front 38/rear 44, with plate scales grown 0.1 to match) instead of sitting right near the 33/38 near-minimu
- g22 `245f65ba` fitness 6.172 Wh/km-agg — was: Same short-arm, high-disk-loading pivot away from the elite family's long-arm floor-mass shape, but the rotor/deck clearance failure is fixed by raising deck_gap from 0.026 to 0.038 (well clear of the FC/battery stack) with a small plate-scale margin bump for the moderate sweep spread.
- g22 `6e14487e` fitness 6.737 Wh/km-agg — was: Every previous ASA/PA12-CF/PET-CF/PETG pivot under-compensated on only one axis (thickness alone) and failed validity or scored worse; this fully compensates a tough, damped ASA build simultaneously across arm_thickness (near-max), waist (relaxed to remove the pinch-point resonance node), shortened arm_length (less moment arm), and plate_thickness (well above the printed floor) to give damage-tole
- g22 `8eef9a02` fitness 6.548 Wh/km-agg — was: Prior wide-sweep-plus-wedge attempts always paired a tight front with a wide rear; the reverse asymmetry (wide front, tight rear) shifting the aero center forward, combined with max battery wedge, has never been tested and could better address crosswind/cold_headwind while keeping the proven thin-mass carbon arms untouched.
- g24 `720187ca` fitness 6.204 Wh/km-agg — was: Layer a mild, previously-untested plate_thickness_scale bump (0.85, well below the 1.25-1.35 extremes that always lost to mass penalty) onto elite frame 83's exact proven geometry, isolating whether a small core-stiffness increment trims the storm penalty without the mass cost that sank every prior aggressive core-stiffening attempt.
- g24 `a5e05228` fitness 6.360 Wh/km-agg — was: Decouple root stiffness from tip drag by moderately widening only the arm root (arm_width_scale=0.95) while keeping the waist at the proven floor (0.55) for a tapered thick-root/thin-tip profile -- every prior stiffness pivot widened width AND waist together and always lost, so this isolates root-only reinforcement against storm gust torque without the uniform-width mass/drag penalty.
- g24 `b5fd89cd` fitness 6.144 Wh/km-agg — was: Same short-arm, high-disk-loading pivot as the failed design, but raise arm_length_scale from 0.76 to 0.83 (still shorter than every current elite's floor of 0.884) to restore rotor-tip clearance at this sweep, keeping width/waist/thickness/sweep/plate/deck_gap/material identical to isolate exactly how short the arms can go before disk overlap trumps mass savings.
- g26 `6125754b` fitness 6.355 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior waist pivot bundled the waist change with a root-width increase and always lost to the combined mass penalty or triggered resonance; this isolates the mid-shaft taper alone by keeping arm_width_scale at the elite floor (0.75) and removing the pinch (arm_waist_scale raised to 1.00, well short of the 1.2+ combos that previously failed) with only a token thickness nudge for safety, testin
- g26 `8cfdbc77` fitness 6.711 Wh/km-agg — was: Every material pivot away from carbon has failed validity or scored worse because each only over-compensated one axis at a time; this abandons carbon outright for PET-CF (material=0.40) while applying every lesson learned at once - thickness raised well past every previous tip-deflection failure point (0.007), waist relaxed to remove the pinch resonance node (0.85), width nudged up for margin (0.8
- g26 `d1bffb11` fitness 6.358 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family shares maximal arm_length compression (0.83-0.92, far below the 1.35 ceiling) - every mass lever has been squeezed on that axis but disk-loading itself has never been isolated, so push arm_length_scale to 1.30 (longer arms only increase rotor separation, so tip-overlap risk drops rather than rises) while holding every other gene at the proven floor-mass carbon values to tes
- g27 `1b980041` fitness 6.324 Wh/km-agg — was: Long arm_length has only ever been tested bundled with a waist change and elite-adjacent sweep (scored worse at 6.358), never paired with genuinely tight, near-floor sweep on both axes -- this isolates true low-disk-loading, minimum-frontal-profile geometry by pushing arm_length to 1.32 while pulling sweep close to the stock minimum (32/36, with a small buffer off the true 30/34 floor to avoid ton
- g27 `38fcbadb` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Every prior material pivot bolted single-axis compensation (thickness alone, or thickness+waist) onto the elite's short-arm/near-stock-sweep carbon shape and always lost; this instead rebuilds proportions from scratch around untested PETG (material 0.75) with arms genuinely elongated (1.05, cutting disk loading) plus simultaneously widened (0.85) and de-pinched (waist 0.85) for real stiffness marg
- g27 `71f4f5ad` fitness 6.333 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family shares narrow near-stock sweep (36/42) paired with short arms (0.83-0.92) -- a minimum-frontal-profile, minimum-disk-loading compromise that has plateaued storm at 4.72-4.75; this pivot commits fully to the opposite side of that tradeoff by combining short arms (0.85, near the validated tip-clearance floor) with a genuinely wide splayed sweep (front 44, rear 50, plate scale
- g28 `029bbd03` fitness 6.771 Wh/km-agg — was: Same long-arm low-disk-loading pivot as the failed design, but instead of pairing it with a wide 42/48 sweep that missed the main plate, hold sweep at the proven-valid 36/42 elite pairing (already validated with arm_length_scale=1.30 in frame d1bffb11) and only modestly grow plate scale (1.05/1.05) to buffer the wider/de-pinched root against the width and waist stiffness increase.
- g28 `b154ee08` fitness 6.451 Wh/km-agg — was: Same max-battery-wedge frontal-area reduction test at near-stock sweep, but raise arm_length_scale from 0.85 to 1.15 (past the previously-validated clearance fix of 1.1) to restore rotor tip separation instead of letting the short arms overlap.
- g28 `ff31eeb4` fitness 6.746 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior tough-material pivot (ASA/PA12-CF/PET-CF/PETG) kept the elite's short, near-stock-sweep arm proportions and either under-compensated or still lost, so this pivot pairs a fully committed ASA build (material 0.9, arm_thickness well past every past tip-deflection failure point, waist and width both relaxed, plate_thickness_scale at a full 1.0 margin above the printed-material floor) with 
- g29 `093c1d4d` fitness 6.376 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior PA12-CF/PET-CF/ASA/PETG pivot stacked its material compensation onto longer or wider arms and always lost to the combined mass penalty; keep the arm at the validated short, low-moment floor (0.85) with only a moderate width/waist/thickness bump and the minimum printed-material plate floor (0.9) to test whether a genuinely short-arm PA12-CF build is the missing configuration that makes 
- g29 `3edd371f` fitness 6.391 Wh/km-agg — was: Same splayed-sweep, short-arm frontal-area pivot, but pull both sweeps back 2 deg and add far more plate-scale margin (1.22/1.20 vs 1.15/1.12) plus trim arm_width to 0.82 to shrink the tongue footprint, since the prior attempt's margin wasn't enough to keep the tongue bolts on the main plate.
- g29 `ec933900` fitness 6.460 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family sits at zero battery wedge with short 0.83-0.92 arms, so the two frontal-area/induced-power levers that each hit ~6.35-6.37 in isolation have never been combined; pair long arms (1.30, previously validated for tip clearance at stock sweep) with max battery wedge (15) and the wedge-clearance deck_gap (0.043) to test whether lower disk loading plus reduced frontal area jointl

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 21, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 17, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 17, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 23, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 15, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.01 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.20 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.60 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.19 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 7 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 PIVOTAL designs that abandon that trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space. Do NOT refine the elites — a pivot that lands near them is a wasted round. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 9f871c62 — Every current elite shares floor-mass arm width/waist/thickness bundled with short arms; this pivot fully commits to the opposite corner - long arms for low disk loading plus genuinely reinforced width/waist/thickness for real gust stiffness, at the proven-safe 36/42 sweep pairing, to test whether authentic structural margin (not just arm-length) is what unlocks past the storm plateau.flew at 7.393 Wh/km
candidate 61158ead — Combine long-arm low disk loading with max battery wedge and max deck_gap for frontal-area reduction, plus a real deck-stiffness bump - an aero+clearance+stiffness combo never tested together (prior wedge+arm-length tests kept plate_thickness at the floor), at the same proven 36/42 sweep pairing.flew at 6.829 Wh/km
candidate 815bffc7 — Every material pivot away from carbon so far paired its compensation with the elite's short-arm shape and lost; this pairs long arms (lower disk loading, more distributed load path) with real thickness/width margin for genuine PETG toughness, testing whether the material only wins in a different geometric family.invalid — arm tip deflection (petg)
candidate d09c35dc — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — Every elite shares a near-symmetric tight sweep (36/42) that minimizes frontal area uniformly on both axes; this pivots to a genuinely untested nose-tight/tail-wide asymmetry (33 front, 54 rear) to cut frontal cross-section right at the nose where headwind/crosswind bite hardest, while letting the rear arms splay wide (clear of the flight-facing profile) for prop clearance, with plate scales grown
candidate cf6ac331 — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — Long arm_length (low disk loading) and wide sweep (reduced rotor interference) have each been isolated and each lost narrowly on their own, but never combined with adequate plate-scale margin; this stacks arm_length_scale=1.30 with a genuinely wide symmetric 42/48 sweep and plate scales sized for that spread to test whether the aero/interference gains of both levers together finally outweigh their
candidate da1f465e — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — The elite family's arm_length_scale floor (0.83) was set by rotor-tip/deck collisions, but the deck_gap used there (0.04) is well short of the 0.045 max, so it's unproven whether the binding constraint was tip overlap or deck clearance; this pivot pushes deck_gap near its ceiling (0.044) to free the deck-collision constraint and tests a shorter arm_length_scale (0.78) than any valid prior design,

b5fd89cd1e22

6.144 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.24
cold_headwind	3.91
crosswind	3.77
gusty_light	3.62
hot_thin	3.46
storm	4.72

bd7c0cc776e5

6.160 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.25
cold_headwind	3.92
crosswind	3.78
gusty_light	3.63
hot_thin	3.46
storm	4.73

743f85076dc5

6.176 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.26
cold_headwind	3.93
crosswind	3.79
gusty_light	3.64
hot_thin	3.47
storm	4.74

61158ead8b8c

6.829 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.57
cold_headwind	4.42
crosswind	4.20
gusty_light	4.01
hot_thin	3.80
storm	5.24

d27e3b644e69

6.833 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.58
cold_headwind	4.40
crosswind	4.20
gusty_light	4.01
hot_thin	3.81
storm	5.25

9f871c62ad20

7.393 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.83
cold_headwind	4.81
crosswind	4.53
gusty_light	4.33
hot_thin	4.09
storm	5.69

996c430df865

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.19 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

e615dc8d3a25

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

e162599ce26b

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.19 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

74e38c3db9ed

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

43fb4a1dc200

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

1af27a90ed91

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

552b09dbb0d4

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

0a24b568835b

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

2ea47d5f310e

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

815bffc7f216

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (petg)

calm_warm	3.61
cold_headwind	4.53
crosswind	4.28
gusty_light	4.08
hot_thin	3.85
storm	5.35

generation 29

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 3 design(s) injected, 1 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	3
pivot crosses (far parent)	7
random immigrants	1

mutation σ 0.074 of gene range
pivot σ 0.119 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 29 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.75..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.55..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.004..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.7..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257, g21 6.257, g22 6.172, g23 6.165, g24 6.144, g25 6.144, g26 6.144, g27 6.144, g28 6.144 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 6 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.144 Wh/km-agg, frame 82 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.83, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.0, "plate_length_scale": 1.02, "plate_width_scale": 1.02, "deck_gap": 0.04, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.05} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.24, "cold_headwind": 3.91, "crosswind": 3.77, "gusty_light": 3.62, "hot_thin": 3.46, "storm": 4.72}
fitness 6.160 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8654, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 41.6897, "plate_length_scale": 1.002, "plate_width_scale": 1.02, "deck_gap": 0.0423, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7107, "material": 0.05} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.25, "cold_headwind": 3.92, "crosswind": 3.78, "gusty_light": 3.63, "hot_thin": 3.46, "storm": 4.73}
fitness 6.165 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8841, "arm_width_scale": 0.7766, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 35.7361, "rear_sweep_deg": 41.2361, "plate_length_scale": 1.02, "plate_width_scale": 1.0182, "deck_gap": 0.0373, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.5978, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1232} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.25, "cold_headwind": 3.93, "crosswind": 3.78, "gusty_light": 3.64, "hot_thin": 3.47, "storm": 4.73}
fitness 6.167 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.83, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.6246, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.0, "plate_length_scale": 1.02, "plate_width_scale": 1.02, "deck_gap": 0.04, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.25, "cold_headwind": 3.93, "crosswind": 3.78, "gusty_light": 3.64, "hot_thin": 3.47, "storm": 4.73}
fitness 6.172 Wh/km-agg, frame 84 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.92, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.0, "plate_length_scale": 1.02, "plate_width_scale": 1.02, "deck_gap": 0.038, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.05} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.25, "cold_headwind": 3.93, "crosswind": 3.79, "gusty_light": 3.64, "hot_thin": 3.47, "storm": 4.74}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g20 `21664820` fitness 8.018 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family's floor-thickness/min-width/min-waist arms have exhausted every mass-reduction lever without denting the storm penalty; combine the two previously-isolated promising stiffness levers -- waist decoupling (arm_waist_scale=1.2, no pinch point, scored 6.630 alone) and deck/core stiffening (plate_thickness_scale=1.35, deck_gap=0.040, scored 6.504 alone) -- into one genuinely stiff-arm,
- g20 `cc53cd9d` fitness 6.514 Wh/km-agg — was: Every material pivot away from carbon has failed validity because it kept the elite's thin-shell dimensions unchanged; properly compensate PA12-CF's higher density and lower stiffness this time (arm_thickness raised to 0.006 to fix the repeated pa12_cf tip-deflection failure, plate_thickness_scale raised to 1.0, well above the 0.8 printed-material floor) to cleanly test whether its damage toleranc
- g20 `f45e862c` fitness 6.619 Wh/km-agg — was: Battery wedge is the only frontal-area lever that ever came close to the elite in isolation (wedge=14 scored 6.371) while every symmetric sweep-widening attempt lost to its own plate-mass penalty, so push wedge to its true max (15) and pair it with an asymmetric tight-nose/wide-tail sweep (front at the 30 deg floor, rear opened to 46) to shift the aerodynamic center for storm/crosswind stability i
- g21 `5e6a89c8` fitness 6.504 Wh/km-agg — was: Battery wedge and deck_gap have each been isolated before (both landing worse than elite alone) but never combined; this pivot pushes both to near their maxima together -- generous deck_gap (0.043) giving the max battery tilt (15 deg) safe rotor/battery clearance -- with moderate (not elite-extreme) arm_length_scale (1.15) and stock sweep, testing whether the clearance-vs-wedge interaction unlocks
- g21 `8b5de20a` fitness 8.053 Wh/km-agg — was: Same genuine wide/thick/no-pinch arm stiffness test as the failed design, but the short arm_length_scale=0.85 was shrinking motor separation enough to overlap rotor disks, so arm_length_scale is raised to 1.1 for safe tip clearance, and sweep is nudged off the tongue-collision-prone minimum (front 38/rear 44, with plate scales grown 0.1 to match) instead of sitting right near the 33/38 near-minimu
- g22 `245f65ba` fitness 6.172 Wh/km-agg — was: Same short-arm, high-disk-loading pivot away from the elite family's long-arm floor-mass shape, but the rotor/deck clearance failure is fixed by raising deck_gap from 0.026 to 0.038 (well clear of the FC/battery stack) with a small plate-scale margin bump for the moderate sweep spread.
- g22 `6e14487e` fitness 6.737 Wh/km-agg — was: Every previous ASA/PA12-CF/PET-CF/PETG pivot under-compensated on only one axis (thickness alone) and failed validity or scored worse; this fully compensates a tough, damped ASA build simultaneously across arm_thickness (near-max), waist (relaxed to remove the pinch-point resonance node), shortened arm_length (less moment arm), and plate_thickness (well above the printed floor) to give damage-tole
- g22 `8eef9a02` fitness 6.548 Wh/km-agg — was: Prior wide-sweep-plus-wedge attempts always paired a tight front with a wide rear; the reverse asymmetry (wide front, tight rear) shifting the aero center forward, combined with max battery wedge, has never been tested and could better address crosswind/cold_headwind while keeping the proven thin-mass carbon arms untouched.
- g24 `720187ca` fitness 6.204 Wh/km-agg — was: Layer a mild, previously-untested plate_thickness_scale bump (0.85, well below the 1.25-1.35 extremes that always lost to mass penalty) onto elite frame 83's exact proven geometry, isolating whether a small core-stiffness increment trims the storm penalty without the mass cost that sank every prior aggressive core-stiffening attempt.
- g24 `a5e05228` fitness 6.360 Wh/km-agg — was: Decouple root stiffness from tip drag by moderately widening only the arm root (arm_width_scale=0.95) while keeping the waist at the proven floor (0.55) for a tapered thick-root/thin-tip profile -- every prior stiffness pivot widened width AND waist together and always lost, so this isolates root-only reinforcement against storm gust torque without the uniform-width mass/drag penalty.
- g24 `b5fd89cd` fitness 6.144 Wh/km-agg — was: Same short-arm, high-disk-loading pivot as the failed design, but raise arm_length_scale from 0.76 to 0.83 (still shorter than every current elite's floor of 0.884) to restore rotor-tip clearance at this sweep, keeping width/waist/thickness/sweep/plate/deck_gap/material identical to isolate exactly how short the arms can go before disk overlap trumps mass savings.
- g26 `6125754b` fitness 6.355 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior waist pivot bundled the waist change with a root-width increase and always lost to the combined mass penalty or triggered resonance; this isolates the mid-shaft taper alone by keeping arm_width_scale at the elite floor (0.75) and removing the pinch (arm_waist_scale raised to 1.00, well short of the 1.2+ combos that previously failed) with only a token thickness nudge for safety, testin
- g26 `8cfdbc77` fitness 6.711 Wh/km-agg — was: Every material pivot away from carbon has failed validity or scored worse because each only over-compensated one axis at a time; this abandons carbon outright for PET-CF (material=0.40) while applying every lesson learned at once - thickness raised well past every previous tip-deflection failure point (0.007), waist relaxed to remove the pinch resonance node (0.85), width nudged up for margin (0.8
- g26 `d1bffb11` fitness 6.358 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family shares maximal arm_length compression (0.83-0.92, far below the 1.35 ceiling) - every mass lever has been squeezed on that axis but disk-loading itself has never been isolated, so push arm_length_scale to 1.30 (longer arms only increase rotor separation, so tip-overlap risk drops rather than rises) while holding every other gene at the proven floor-mass carbon values to tes
- g27 `1b980041` fitness 6.324 Wh/km-agg — was: Long arm_length has only ever been tested bundled with a waist change and elite-adjacent sweep (scored worse at 6.358), never paired with genuinely tight, near-floor sweep on both axes -- this isolates true low-disk-loading, minimum-frontal-profile geometry by pushing arm_length to 1.32 while pulling sweep close to the stock minimum (32/36, with a small buffer off the true 30/34 floor to avoid ton
- g27 `38fcbadb` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Every prior material pivot bolted single-axis compensation (thickness alone, or thickness+waist) onto the elite's short-arm/near-stock-sweep carbon shape and always lost; this instead rebuilds proportions from scratch around untested PETG (material 0.75) with arms genuinely elongated (1.05, cutting disk loading) plus simultaneously widened (0.85) and de-pinched (waist 0.85) for real stiffness marg
- g27 `71f4f5ad` fitness 6.333 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family shares narrow near-stock sweep (36/42) paired with short arms (0.83-0.92) -- a minimum-frontal-profile, minimum-disk-loading compromise that has plateaued storm at 4.72-4.75; this pivot commits fully to the opposite side of that tradeoff by combining short arms (0.85, near the validated tip-clearance floor) with a genuinely wide splayed sweep (front 44, rear 50, plate scale
- g28 `029bbd03` fitness 6.771 Wh/km-agg — was: Same long-arm low-disk-loading pivot as the failed design, but instead of pairing it with a wide 42/48 sweep that missed the main plate, hold sweep at the proven-valid 36/42 elite pairing (already validated with arm_length_scale=1.30 in frame d1bffb11) and only modestly grow plate scale (1.05/1.05) to buffer the wider/de-pinched root against the width and waist stiffness increase.
- g28 `b154ee08` fitness 6.451 Wh/km-agg — was: Same max-battery-wedge frontal-area reduction test at near-stock sweep, but raise arm_length_scale from 0.85 to 1.15 (past the previously-validated clearance fix of 1.1) to restore rotor tip separation instead of letting the short arms overlap.
- g28 `ff31eeb4` fitness 6.746 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior tough-material pivot (ASA/PA12-CF/PET-CF/PETG) kept the elite's short, near-stock-sweep arm proportions and either under-compensated or still lost, so this pivot pairs a fully committed ASA build (material 0.9, arm_thickness well past every past tip-deflection failure point, waist and width both relaxed, plate_thickness_scale at a full 1.0 margin above the printed-material floor) with 

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 19, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 17, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 17, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 22, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 14, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.01 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.20 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.60 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 6 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 PIVOTAL designs that abandon that trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space. Do NOT refine the elites — a pivot that lands near them is a wasted round. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate ec933900 — The entire elite family sits at zero battery wedge with short 0.83-0.92 arms, so the two frontal-area/induced-power levers that each hit ~6.35-6.37 in isolation have never been combined; pair long arms (1.30, previously validated for tip clearance at stock sweep) with max battery wedge (15) and the wedge-clearance deck_gap (0.043) to test whether lower disk loading plus reduced frontal area jointlflew at 6.460 Wh/km
candidate 093c1d4d — Every prior PA12-CF/PET-CF/ASA/PETG pivot stacked its material compensation onto longer or wider arms and always lost to the combined mass penalty; keep the arm at the validated short, low-moment floor (0.85) with only a moderate width/waist/thickness bump and the minimum printed-material plate floor (0.9) to test whether a genuinely short-arm PA12-CF build is the missing configuration that makes flew at 6.376 Wh/km
candidate 3edd371f — Same splayed-sweep, short-arm frontal-area pivot, but pull both sweeps back 2 deg and add far more plate-scale margin (1.22/1.20 vs 1.15/1.12) plus trim arm_width to 0.82 to shrink the tongue footprint, since the prior attempt's margin wasn't enough to keep the tongue bolts on the main plate.flew at 6.391 Wh/km
candidate 2c53589b — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — Wide splayed sweep (front 44/rear 50) has only ever been tested with floor-width arms and lost to torsional penalties in storm/crosswind; this pairs the same validated wide-sweep, tip-clearance-safe short arm (0.85) with root-only width reinforcement (0.90, waist left at the floor taper) and enough plate growth to keep the tongue bolts on the plate, isolating whether targeted root stiffness finall

b5fd89cd1e22

6.144 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.24
cold_headwind	3.91
crosswind	3.77
gusty_light	3.62
hot_thin	3.46
storm	4.72

bd7c0cc776e5

6.160 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.25
cold_headwind	3.92
crosswind	3.78
gusty_light	3.63
hot_thin	3.46
storm	4.73

f3c1391bd96c

6.160 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.25
cold_headwind	3.92
crosswind	3.78
gusty_light	3.63
hot_thin	3.47
storm	4.73

eaac38d8fb90

6.168 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.25
cold_headwind	3.93
crosswind	3.79
gusty_light	3.64
hot_thin	3.47
storm	4.73

5d716b74aeec

6.321 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.31
cold_headwind	4.05
crosswind	3.89
gusty_light	3.72
hot_thin	3.54
storm	4.85

093c1d4d8456

6.376 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.33
cold_headwind	4.10
crosswind	3.93
gusty_light	3.75
hot_thin	3.56
storm	4.90

3edd371fb561

6.391 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.36
cold_headwind	4.09
crosswind	3.92
gusty_light	3.76
hot_thin	3.58
storm	4.91

ec9339002012

6.460 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.39
cold_headwind	4.17
crosswind	3.97
gusty_light	3.80
hot_thin	3.60
storm	4.96

6819f10e81f0

6.504 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.41
cold_headwind	4.17
crosswind	4.01
gusty_light	3.83
hot_thin	3.63
storm	5.00

3110d83a7fdb

6.917 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.61
cold_headwind	4.47
crosswind	4.26
gusty_light	4.06
hot_thin	3.85
storm	5.31

f17e0da204ad

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)

23fe18955143

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

e16b157da4af

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.19 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

83dcce1f5619

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

2a21d0410682

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (petg)

calm_warm	3.62
cold_headwind	4.52
crosswind	4.26
gusty_light	4.06
hot_thin	3.85
storm	5.32

92e1fc2e2002

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

generation 28

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 3 design(s) injected, 2 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	3
mutants (single parent)	1
pivot crosses (far parent)	7

mutation σ 0.077 of gene range
pivot σ 0.123 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 28 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.75..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.55..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.004..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.7..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257, g21 6.257, g22 6.172, g23 6.165, g24 6.144, g25 6.144, g26 6.144, g27 6.144 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 5 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.144 Wh/km-agg, frame 82 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.83, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.0, "plate_length_scale": 1.02, "plate_width_scale": 1.02, "deck_gap": 0.04, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.05} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.24, "cold_headwind": 3.91, "crosswind": 3.77, "gusty_light": 3.62, "hot_thin": 3.46, "storm": 4.72}
fitness 6.165 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8841, "arm_width_scale": 0.7766, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 35.7361, "rear_sweep_deg": 41.2361, "plate_length_scale": 1.02, "plate_width_scale": 1.0182, "deck_gap": 0.0373, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.5978, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1232} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.25, "cold_headwind": 3.93, "crosswind": 3.78, "gusty_light": 3.64, "hot_thin": 3.47, "storm": 4.73}
fitness 6.167 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.83, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.6246, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.0, "plate_length_scale": 1.02, "plate_width_scale": 1.02, "deck_gap": 0.04, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.25, "cold_headwind": 3.93, "crosswind": 3.78, "gusty_light": 3.64, "hot_thin": 3.47, "storm": 4.73}
fitness 6.172 Wh/km-agg, frame 84 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.92, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.0, "plate_length_scale": 1.02, "plate_width_scale": 1.02, "deck_gap": 0.038, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.05} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.25, "cold_headwind": 3.93, "crosswind": 3.79, "gusty_light": 3.64, "hot_thin": 3.47, "storm": 4.74}
fitness 6.199 Wh/km-agg, frame 86 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8874, "arm_width_scale": 0.7798, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5529, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 38.9776, "rear_sweep_deg": 39.985, "plate_length_scale": 1.0203, "plate_width_scale": 1.0096, "deck_gap": 0.0373, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.6648, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.124} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.28, "cold_headwind": 3.94, "crosswind": 3.8, "gusty_light": 3.66, "hot_thin": 3.49, "storm": 4.75}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g18 `d8d770d5` INVALID (arm tip deflection (asa)) — was: Switch away from carbon to a tough, damped ASA build (material 0.9) with thickness, width and waist properly compensated (arm_thickness 0.006, waist relaxed to 0.85 to remove a pinch-point resonance node, plate_thickness_scale 1.0) to test whether damage tolerance under gust loading can genuinely cut the storm penalty that dominates the fitness function, unlike prior uncompensated material pivots 
- g19 `0e35d1c3` fitness 6.588 Wh/km-agg — was: Same combined wide-stance-plus-battery-wedge frontal-area pivot as the failed design, but grow plate_length/width_scale to 1.28/1.24 -- the pairing already proven to keep the tongue bolts seated at this exact +12.6/+14 deg sweep deviation -- instead of the too-thin 1.22/1.18 that let them miss the main plate.
- g19 `624da8bb` INVALID (arm resonance with rotor 1P) — was: The elite family shares a floor-thickness, minimum-mass build where every attempt to add stiffness got starved by mass penalty — so isolate the opposite extreme (near-max arm width/waist/thickness plus near-max plate thickness, sweep held at stock and deck_gap generously raised for stack clearance) to see whether real structural stiffness ever pays off for storm once mass is not being traded piece
- g20 `21664820` fitness 8.018 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family's floor-thickness/min-width/min-waist arms have exhausted every mass-reduction lever without denting the storm penalty; combine the two previously-isolated promising stiffness levers -- waist decoupling (arm_waist_scale=1.2, no pinch point, scored 6.630 alone) and deck/core stiffening (plate_thickness_scale=1.35, deck_gap=0.040, scored 6.504 alone) -- into one genuinely stiff-arm,
- g20 `cc53cd9d` fitness 6.514 Wh/km-agg — was: Every material pivot away from carbon has failed validity because it kept the elite's thin-shell dimensions unchanged; properly compensate PA12-CF's higher density and lower stiffness this time (arm_thickness raised to 0.006 to fix the repeated pa12_cf tip-deflection failure, plate_thickness_scale raised to 1.0, well above the 0.8 printed-material floor) to cleanly test whether its damage toleranc
- g20 `f45e862c` fitness 6.619 Wh/km-agg — was: Battery wedge is the only frontal-area lever that ever came close to the elite in isolation (wedge=14 scored 6.371) while every symmetric sweep-widening attempt lost to its own plate-mass penalty, so push wedge to its true max (15) and pair it with an asymmetric tight-nose/wide-tail sweep (front at the 30 deg floor, rear opened to 46) to shift the aerodynamic center for storm/crosswind stability i
- g21 `5e6a89c8` fitness 6.504 Wh/km-agg — was: Battery wedge and deck_gap have each been isolated before (both landing worse than elite alone) but never combined; this pivot pushes both to near their maxima together -- generous deck_gap (0.043) giving the max battery tilt (15 deg) safe rotor/battery clearance -- with moderate (not elite-extreme) arm_length_scale (1.15) and stock sweep, testing whether the clearance-vs-wedge interaction unlocks
- g21 `8b5de20a` fitness 8.053 Wh/km-agg — was: Same genuine wide/thick/no-pinch arm stiffness test as the failed design, but the short arm_length_scale=0.85 was shrinking motor separation enough to overlap rotor disks, so arm_length_scale is raised to 1.1 for safe tip clearance, and sweep is nudged off the tongue-collision-prone minimum (front 38/rear 44, with plate scales grown 0.1 to match) instead of sitting right near the 33/38 near-minimu
- g22 `245f65ba` fitness 6.172 Wh/km-agg — was: Same short-arm, high-disk-loading pivot away from the elite family's long-arm floor-mass shape, but the rotor/deck clearance failure is fixed by raising deck_gap from 0.026 to 0.038 (well clear of the FC/battery stack) with a small plate-scale margin bump for the moderate sweep spread.
- g22 `6e14487e` fitness 6.737 Wh/km-agg — was: Every previous ASA/PA12-CF/PET-CF/PETG pivot under-compensated on only one axis (thickness alone) and failed validity or scored worse; this fully compensates a tough, damped ASA build simultaneously across arm_thickness (near-max), waist (relaxed to remove the pinch-point resonance node), shortened arm_length (less moment arm), and plate_thickness (well above the printed floor) to give damage-tole
- g22 `8eef9a02` fitness 6.548 Wh/km-agg — was: Prior wide-sweep-plus-wedge attempts always paired a tight front with a wide rear; the reverse asymmetry (wide front, tight rear) shifting the aero center forward, combined with max battery wedge, has never been tested and could better address crosswind/cold_headwind while keeping the proven thin-mass carbon arms untouched.
- g24 `720187ca` fitness 6.204 Wh/km-agg — was: Layer a mild, previously-untested plate_thickness_scale bump (0.85, well below the 1.25-1.35 extremes that always lost to mass penalty) onto elite frame 83's exact proven geometry, isolating whether a small core-stiffness increment trims the storm penalty without the mass cost that sank every prior aggressive core-stiffening attempt.
- g24 `a5e05228` fitness 6.360 Wh/km-agg — was: Decouple root stiffness from tip drag by moderately widening only the arm root (arm_width_scale=0.95) while keeping the waist at the proven floor (0.55) for a tapered thick-root/thin-tip profile -- every prior stiffness pivot widened width AND waist together and always lost, so this isolates root-only reinforcement against storm gust torque without the uniform-width mass/drag penalty.
- g24 `b5fd89cd` fitness 6.144 Wh/km-agg — was: Same short-arm, high-disk-loading pivot as the failed design, but raise arm_length_scale from 0.76 to 0.83 (still shorter than every current elite's floor of 0.884) to restore rotor-tip clearance at this sweep, keeping width/waist/thickness/sweep/plate/deck_gap/material identical to isolate exactly how short the arms can go before disk overlap trumps mass savings.
- g26 `6125754b` fitness 6.355 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior waist pivot bundled the waist change with a root-width increase and always lost to the combined mass penalty or triggered resonance; this isolates the mid-shaft taper alone by keeping arm_width_scale at the elite floor (0.75) and removing the pinch (arm_waist_scale raised to 1.00, well short of the 1.2+ combos that previously failed) with only a token thickness nudge for safety, testin
- g26 `8cfdbc77` fitness 6.711 Wh/km-agg — was: Every material pivot away from carbon has failed validity or scored worse because each only over-compensated one axis at a time; this abandons carbon outright for PET-CF (material=0.40) while applying every lesson learned at once - thickness raised well past every previous tip-deflection failure point (0.007), waist relaxed to remove the pinch resonance node (0.85), width nudged up for margin (0.8
- g26 `d1bffb11` fitness 6.358 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family shares maximal arm_length compression (0.83-0.92, far below the 1.35 ceiling) - every mass lever has been squeezed on that axis but disk-loading itself has never been isolated, so push arm_length_scale to 1.30 (longer arms only increase rotor separation, so tip-overlap risk drops rather than rises) while holding every other gene at the proven floor-mass carbon values to tes
- g27 `1b980041` fitness 6.324 Wh/km-agg — was: Long arm_length has only ever been tested bundled with a waist change and elite-adjacent sweep (scored worse at 6.358), never paired with genuinely tight, near-floor sweep on both axes -- this isolates true low-disk-loading, minimum-frontal-profile geometry by pushing arm_length to 1.32 while pulling sweep close to the stock minimum (32/36, with a small buffer off the true 30/34 floor to avoid ton
- g27 `38fcbadb` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Every prior material pivot bolted single-axis compensation (thickness alone, or thickness+waist) onto the elite's short-arm/near-stock-sweep carbon shape and always lost; this instead rebuilds proportions from scratch around untested PETG (material 0.75) with arms genuinely elongated (1.05, cutting disk loading) plus simultaneously widened (0.85) and de-pinched (waist 0.85) for real stiffness marg
- g27 `71f4f5ad` fitness 6.333 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family shares narrow near-stock sweep (36/42) paired with short arms (0.83-0.92) -- a minimum-frontal-profile, minimum-disk-loading compromise that has plateaued storm at 4.72-4.75; this pivot commits fully to the opposite side of that tradeoff by combining short arms (0.85, near the validated tip-clearance floor) with a genuinely wide splayed sweep (front 44, rear 50, plate scale

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 19, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 17, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 15, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 19, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 14, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.01 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.20 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.60 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 5 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 PIVOTAL designs that abandon that trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space. Do NOT refine the elites — a pivot that lands near them is a wasted round. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate ff31eeb4 — Every prior tough-material pivot (ASA/PA12-CF/PET-CF/PETG) kept the elite's short, near-stock-sweep arm proportions and either under-compensated or still lost, so this pivot pairs a fully committed ASA build (material 0.9, arm_thickness well past every past tip-deflection failure point, waist and width both relaxed, plate_thickness_scale at a full 1.0 margin above the printed-material floor) with flew at 6.746 Wh/km
candidate 029bbd03 — Same long-arm low-disk-loading pivot as the failed design, but instead of pairing it with a wide 42/48 sweep that missed the main plate, hold sweep at the proven-valid 36/42 elite pairing (already validated with arm_length_scale=1.30 in frame d1bffb11) and only modestly grow plate scale (1.05/1.05) to buffer the wider/de-pinched root against the width and waist stiffness increase.flew at 6.771 Wh/km
candidate b154ee08 — Same max-battery-wedge frontal-area reduction test at near-stock sweep, but raise arm_length_scale from 0.85 to 1.15 (past the previously-validated clearance fix of 1.1) to restore rotor tip separation instead of letting the short arms overlap.flew at 6.451 Wh/km
candidate f6d95d43 — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — The elite family has plateaued because every gene sits at its mass/drag floor (short arms, floor width/waist, floor plate thickness) with zero stiffness margin against storm's gust loading, so this pivot commits to genuinely long arms (1.30, which past tests confirm increases rather than decreases rotor-tip clearance) combined -- for the first time -- with a real width/waist stiffness bump and a w
candidate a71f318c — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Battery wedge has only ever been tested bundled with a widened or asymmetric sweep, confounding whether the tilt itself helps; this pivot isolates the wedge's true effect by pushing it to its max (15 deg) while holding sweep near the floor (but off the exact tongue-collision minimum) and arms at the proven floor-mass, floor-width shape, with deck_gap raised generously to give the max-tilt battery

b5fd89cd1e22

6.144 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.24
cold_headwind	3.91
crosswind	3.77
gusty_light	3.62
hot_thin	3.46
storm	4.72

bd7c0cc776e5

6.160 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.25
cold_headwind	3.92
crosswind	3.78
gusty_light	3.63
hot_thin	3.46
storm	4.73

a4a39e5410fe

6.165 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.25
cold_headwind	3.93
crosswind	3.78
gusty_light	3.64
hot_thin	3.47
storm	4.73

da2e2a61777f

6.239 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.29
cold_headwind	3.97
crosswind	3.83
gusty_light	3.68
hot_thin	3.51
storm	4.79

c2b0d2201631

6.321 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.31
cold_headwind	4.05
crosswind	3.89
gusty_light	3.72
hot_thin	3.54
storm	4.85

adee376efa76

6.354 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.35
cold_headwind	4.05
crosswind	3.90
gusty_light	3.75
hot_thin	3.57
storm	4.88

1d90321c14ac

6.366 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.35
cold_headwind	4.07
crosswind	3.90
gusty_light	3.75
hot_thin	3.57
storm	4.89

b154ee088551

6.451 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.39
cold_headwind	4.14
crosswind	3.97
gusty_light	3.80
hot_thin	3.61
storm	4.95

ff31eeb40243

6.746 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.50
cold_headwind	4.39
crosswind	4.16
gusty_light	3.96
hot_thin	3.73
storm	5.18

029bbd037a82

6.771 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.53
cold_headwind	4.38
crosswind	4.16
gusty_light	3.97
hot_thin	3.77
storm	5.21

789004694cf7

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

4a23eaf025ff

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

872915b45326

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

19c4f9847a87

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

831d879cf7db

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

9f6c4b3a3e3c

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

generation 27

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 3 design(s) injected

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	4
pivot crosses (far parent)	7

mutation σ 0.079 of gene range
pivot σ 0.127 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 27 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.75..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.55..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.004..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.7..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257, g21 6.257, g22 6.172, g23 6.165, g24 6.144, g25 6.144, g26 6.144 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 4 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.144 Wh/km-agg, frame 82 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.83, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.0, "plate_length_scale": 1.02, "plate_width_scale": 1.02, "deck_gap": 0.04, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.05} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.24, "cold_headwind": 3.91, "crosswind": 3.77, "gusty_light": 3.62, "hot_thin": 3.46, "storm": 4.72}
fitness 6.165 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8841, "arm_width_scale": 0.7766, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 35.7361, "rear_sweep_deg": 41.2361, "plate_length_scale": 1.02, "plate_width_scale": 1.0182, "deck_gap": 0.0373, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.5978, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1232} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.25, "cold_headwind": 3.93, "crosswind": 3.78, "gusty_light": 3.64, "hot_thin": 3.47, "storm": 4.73}
fitness 6.167 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.83, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.6246, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.0, "plate_length_scale": 1.02, "plate_width_scale": 1.02, "deck_gap": 0.04, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.25, "cold_headwind": 3.93, "crosswind": 3.78, "gusty_light": 3.64, "hot_thin": 3.47, "storm": 4.73}
fitness 6.172 Wh/km-agg, frame 84 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.92, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.0, "plate_length_scale": 1.02, "plate_width_scale": 1.02, "deck_gap": 0.038, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.05} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.25, "cold_headwind": 3.93, "crosswind": 3.79, "gusty_light": 3.64, "hot_thin": 3.47, "storm": 4.74}
fitness 6.199 Wh/km-agg, frame 86 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8874, "arm_width_scale": 0.7798, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5529, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 38.9776, "rear_sweep_deg": 39.985, "plate_length_scale": 1.0203, "plate_width_scale": 1.0096, "deck_gap": 0.0373, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.6648, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.124} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.28, "cold_headwind": 3.94, "crosswind": 3.8, "gusty_light": 3.66, "hot_thin": 3.49, "storm": 4.75}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g17 `41f6a585` fitness 6.769 Wh/km-agg — was: Same PLA+ stiff-arm/thick-plate pivot as the failed design, but with deck_gap raised from 0.028 to 0.04 since the thicker plate_thickness_scale=1.0 stack consumes more of the standoff and starved rotor-to-deck clearance at the smaller gap.
- g17 `83f19dec` fitness 6.475 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate pure aerodynamic stance from the mass penalty that sank every prior wide-sweep attempt: push both sweeps well past stock (front +12, rear +14) with plate scales grown generously (1.28/1.24) to keep the tongue bolts safely seated, while leaving the elite's thin floor-mass carbon arms completely untouched.
- g18 `7adc86c1` fitness 6.646 Wh/km-agg — was: Stake out a genuinely wide-stance aero region by combining far-from-stock sweeps (front 43, rear 52, plate scales grown per the 0.1-per-5-deg rule) with an untested 8-deg battery wedge, isolating a combined frontal/side-profile reduction strategy for crosswind and cold_headwind that no prior single-axis sweep or wedge pivot tested together.
- g18 `d8d770d5` INVALID (arm tip deflection (asa)) — was: Switch away from carbon to a tough, damped ASA build (material 0.9) with thickness, width and waist properly compensated (arm_thickness 0.006, waist relaxed to 0.85 to remove a pinch-point resonance node, plate_thickness_scale 1.0) to test whether damage tolerance under gust loading can genuinely cut the storm penalty that dominates the fitness function, unlike prior uncompensated material pivots 
- g19 `0e35d1c3` fitness 6.588 Wh/km-agg — was: Same combined wide-stance-plus-battery-wedge frontal-area pivot as the failed design, but grow plate_length/width_scale to 1.28/1.24 -- the pairing already proven to keep the tongue bolts seated at this exact +12.6/+14 deg sweep deviation -- instead of the too-thin 1.22/1.18 that let them miss the main plate.
- g19 `624da8bb` INVALID (arm resonance with rotor 1P) — was: The elite family shares a floor-thickness, minimum-mass build where every attempt to add stiffness got starved by mass penalty — so isolate the opposite extreme (near-max arm width/waist/thickness plus near-max plate thickness, sweep held at stock and deck_gap generously raised for stack clearance) to see whether real structural stiffness ever pays off for storm once mass is not being traded piece
- g20 `21664820` fitness 8.018 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family's floor-thickness/min-width/min-waist arms have exhausted every mass-reduction lever without denting the storm penalty; combine the two previously-isolated promising stiffness levers -- waist decoupling (arm_waist_scale=1.2, no pinch point, scored 6.630 alone) and deck/core stiffening (plate_thickness_scale=1.35, deck_gap=0.040, scored 6.504 alone) -- into one genuinely stiff-arm,
- g20 `cc53cd9d` fitness 6.514 Wh/km-agg — was: Every material pivot away from carbon has failed validity because it kept the elite's thin-shell dimensions unchanged; properly compensate PA12-CF's higher density and lower stiffness this time (arm_thickness raised to 0.006 to fix the repeated pa12_cf tip-deflection failure, plate_thickness_scale raised to 1.0, well above the 0.8 printed-material floor) to cleanly test whether its damage toleranc
- g20 `f45e862c` fitness 6.619 Wh/km-agg — was: Battery wedge is the only frontal-area lever that ever came close to the elite in isolation (wedge=14 scored 6.371) while every symmetric sweep-widening attempt lost to its own plate-mass penalty, so push wedge to its true max (15) and pair it with an asymmetric tight-nose/wide-tail sweep (front at the 30 deg floor, rear opened to 46) to shift the aerodynamic center for storm/crosswind stability i
- g21 `5e6a89c8` fitness 6.504 Wh/km-agg — was: Battery wedge and deck_gap have each been isolated before (both landing worse than elite alone) but never combined; this pivot pushes both to near their maxima together -- generous deck_gap (0.043) giving the max battery tilt (15 deg) safe rotor/battery clearance -- with moderate (not elite-extreme) arm_length_scale (1.15) and stock sweep, testing whether the clearance-vs-wedge interaction unlocks
- g21 `8b5de20a` fitness 8.053 Wh/km-agg — was: Same genuine wide/thick/no-pinch arm stiffness test as the failed design, but the short arm_length_scale=0.85 was shrinking motor separation enough to overlap rotor disks, so arm_length_scale is raised to 1.1 for safe tip clearance, and sweep is nudged off the tongue-collision-prone minimum (front 38/rear 44, with plate scales grown 0.1 to match) instead of sitting right near the 33/38 near-minimu
- g22 `245f65ba` fitness 6.172 Wh/km-agg — was: Same short-arm, high-disk-loading pivot away from the elite family's long-arm floor-mass shape, but the rotor/deck clearance failure is fixed by raising deck_gap from 0.026 to 0.038 (well clear of the FC/battery stack) with a small plate-scale margin bump for the moderate sweep spread.
- g22 `6e14487e` fitness 6.737 Wh/km-agg — was: Every previous ASA/PA12-CF/PET-CF/PETG pivot under-compensated on only one axis (thickness alone) and failed validity or scored worse; this fully compensates a tough, damped ASA build simultaneously across arm_thickness (near-max), waist (relaxed to remove the pinch-point resonance node), shortened arm_length (less moment arm), and plate_thickness (well above the printed floor) to give damage-tole
- g22 `8eef9a02` fitness 6.548 Wh/km-agg — was: Prior wide-sweep-plus-wedge attempts always paired a tight front with a wide rear; the reverse asymmetry (wide front, tight rear) shifting the aero center forward, combined with max battery wedge, has never been tested and could better address crosswind/cold_headwind while keeping the proven thin-mass carbon arms untouched.
- g24 `720187ca` fitness 6.204 Wh/km-agg — was: Layer a mild, previously-untested plate_thickness_scale bump (0.85, well below the 1.25-1.35 extremes that always lost to mass penalty) onto elite frame 83's exact proven geometry, isolating whether a small core-stiffness increment trims the storm penalty without the mass cost that sank every prior aggressive core-stiffening attempt.
- g24 `a5e05228` fitness 6.360 Wh/km-agg — was: Decouple root stiffness from tip drag by moderately widening only the arm root (arm_width_scale=0.95) while keeping the waist at the proven floor (0.55) for a tapered thick-root/thin-tip profile -- every prior stiffness pivot widened width AND waist together and always lost, so this isolates root-only reinforcement against storm gust torque without the uniform-width mass/drag penalty.
- g24 `b5fd89cd` fitness 6.144 Wh/km-agg — was: Same short-arm, high-disk-loading pivot as the failed design, but raise arm_length_scale from 0.76 to 0.83 (still shorter than every current elite's floor of 0.884) to restore rotor-tip clearance at this sweep, keeping width/waist/thickness/sweep/plate/deck_gap/material identical to isolate exactly how short the arms can go before disk overlap trumps mass savings.
- g26 `6125754b` fitness 6.355 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior waist pivot bundled the waist change with a root-width increase and always lost to the combined mass penalty or triggered resonance; this isolates the mid-shaft taper alone by keeping arm_width_scale at the elite floor (0.75) and removing the pinch (arm_waist_scale raised to 1.00, well short of the 1.2+ combos that previously failed) with only a token thickness nudge for safety, testin
- g26 `8cfdbc77` fitness 6.711 Wh/km-agg — was: Every material pivot away from carbon has failed validity or scored worse because each only over-compensated one axis at a time; this abandons carbon outright for PET-CF (material=0.40) while applying every lesson learned at once - thickness raised well past every previous tip-deflection failure point (0.007), waist relaxed to remove the pinch resonance node (0.85), width nudged up for margin (0.8
- g26 `d1bffb11` fitness 6.358 Wh/km-agg — was: The entire elite family shares maximal arm_length compression (0.83-0.92, far below the 1.35 ceiling) - every mass lever has been squeezed on that axis but disk-loading itself has never been isolated, so push arm_length_scale to 1.30 (longer arms only increase rotor separation, so tip-overlap risk drops rather than rises) while holding every other gene at the proven floor-mass carbon values to tes

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 18, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 17, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 14, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 19, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 12, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.01 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 4 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 PIVOTAL designs that abandon that trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space. Do NOT refine the elites — a pivot that lands near them is a wasted round. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 71f4f5ad — The entire elite family shares narrow near-stock sweep (36/42) paired with short arms (0.83-0.92) -- a minimum-frontal-profile, minimum-disk-loading compromise that has plateaued storm at 4.72-4.75; this pivot commits fully to the opposite side of that tradeoff by combining short arms (0.85, near the validated tip-clearance floor) with a genuinely wide splayed sweep (front 44, rear 50, plate scaleflew at 6.333 Wh/km
candidate 1b980041 — Long arm_length has only ever been tested bundled with a waist change and elite-adjacent sweep (scored worse at 6.358), never paired with genuinely tight, near-floor sweep on both axes -- this isolates true low-disk-loading, minimum-frontal-profile geometry by pushing arm_length to 1.32 while pulling sweep close to the stock minimum (32/36, with a small buffer off the true 30/34 floor to avoid tonflew at 6.324 Wh/km
candidate 38fcbadb — Every prior material pivot bolted single-axis compensation (thickness alone, or thickness+waist) onto the elite's short-arm/near-stock-sweep carbon shape and always lost; this instead rebuilds proportions from scratch around untested PETG (material 0.75) with arms genuinely elongated (1.05, cutting disk loading) plus simultaneously widened (0.85) and de-pinched (waist 0.85) for real stiffness marginvalid — arm tip deflection (petg)

b5fd89cd1e22

6.144 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.24
cold_headwind	3.91
crosswind	3.77
gusty_light	3.62
hot_thin	3.46
storm	4.72

a4a39e5410fe

6.165 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.25
cold_headwind	3.93
crosswind	3.78
gusty_light	3.64
hot_thin	3.47
storm	4.73

0d0345fbccd3

6.238 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	3.96
crosswind	3.83
gusty_light	3.68
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.78

000a251d8f76

6.239 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	3.96
crosswind	3.84
gusty_light	3.68
hot_thin	3.51
storm	4.78

b5f4107adc71

6.281 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.31
cold_headwind	4.01
crosswind	3.85
gusty_light	3.70
hot_thin	3.53
storm	4.82

1b9800417e5c

6.324 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.32
cold_headwind	4.05
crosswind	3.89
gusty_light	3.72
hot_thin	3.54
storm	4.85

71f4f5ad9388

6.333 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.33
cold_headwind	4.04
crosswind	3.88
gusty_light	3.73
hot_thin	3.55
storm	4.86

d4698908f339

6.784 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.58
cold_headwind	4.34
crosswind	4.18
gusty_light	3.99
hot_thin	3.81
storm	5.20

081ca0a0f90a

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

8f202c4dd787

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

d41e5a7395ec

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

92ebf4fd9fe0

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_top 0.20 mm, stock 1.75 mm)

30d48882bdc7

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)

6389a9ef0b85

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)

d0985c31f8b9

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.60 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

38fcbadb6e41

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (petg)

calm_warm	3.54
cold_headwind	4.40
crosswind	4.18
gusty_light	3.99
hot_thin	3.77
storm	5.22

generation 26

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 3 design(s) injected

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	3
mutants (single parent)	1
pivot crosses (far parent)	7

mutation σ 0.082 of gene range
pivot σ 0.130 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 26 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.75..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.55..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.004..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.7..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257, g21 6.257, g22 6.172, g23 6.165, g24 6.144, g25 6.144 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 3 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.144 Wh/km-agg, frame 82 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.83, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.0, "plate_length_scale": 1.02, "plate_width_scale": 1.02, "deck_gap": 0.04, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.05} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.24, "cold_headwind": 3.91, "crosswind": 3.77, "gusty_light": 3.62, "hot_thin": 3.46, "storm": 4.72}
fitness 6.165 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8841, "arm_width_scale": 0.7766, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 35.7361, "rear_sweep_deg": 41.2361, "plate_length_scale": 1.02, "plate_width_scale": 1.0182, "deck_gap": 0.0373, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.5978, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1232} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.25, "cold_headwind": 3.93, "crosswind": 3.78, "gusty_light": 3.64, "hot_thin": 3.47, "storm": 4.73}
fitness 6.172 Wh/km-agg, frame 84 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.92, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.0, "plate_length_scale": 1.02, "plate_width_scale": 1.02, "deck_gap": 0.038, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.05} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.25, "cold_headwind": 3.93, "crosswind": 3.79, "gusty_light": 3.64, "hot_thin": 3.47, "storm": 4.74}
fitness 6.199 Wh/km-agg, frame 86 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8874, "arm_width_scale": 0.7798, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5529, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 38.9776, "rear_sweep_deg": 39.985, "plate_length_scale": 1.0203, "plate_width_scale": 1.0096, "deck_gap": 0.0373, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.6648, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.124} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.28, "cold_headwind": 3.94, "crosswind": 3.8, "gusty_light": 3.66, "hot_thin": 3.49, "storm": 4.75}
fitness 6.204 Wh/km-agg, frame 89 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.9, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 35.7, "rear_sweep_deg": 41.2, "plate_length_scale": 1.02, "plate_width_scale": 1.02, "deck_gap": 0.038, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.85, "material": 0.08} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.27, "cold_headwind": 3.94, "crosswind": 3.81, "gusty_light": 3.66, "hot_thin": 3.49, "storm": 4.76}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g16 `cadb6dac` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Prior material pivots away from carbon always failed validity (arm tip deflection / plate-web-too-thin) because they kept the elite's thin-waist thin-arm shape unchanged for a lower-modulus polymer -- this pivot properly compensates by isolating PETG (damped, tough) with arm_thickness raised to 0.0065 and arm_waist_scale relaxed to 0.80 to prevent tip deflection, and plate_thickness_scale set to 1
- g16 `f2511166` fitness 6.641 Wh/km-agg — was: Replaces the failed 14-deg rear-sweep pivot: trims the deviation to 10 deg past stock and grows plate_length/width_scale to 1.22/1.25 (above the prior 1.15/1.2 that let the tongue bolts miss the main plate) while keeping the same lean thin-arm carbon build to isolate wide-stance stiffness from mass penalties.
- g17 `232aae29` fitness 6.504 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior storm-stiffness pivot added mass to the arms and made the aggregate worse, so instead stiffen the deck/standoff core (deck_gap raised to 0.040, plate_thickness_scale raised to 1.25) while keeping the proven thin-arm, stock-sweep, low-drag geometry completely unchanged, isolating core stiffness from arm stiffness for the first time.
- g17 `41f6a585` fitness 6.769 Wh/km-agg — was: Same PLA+ stiff-arm/thick-plate pivot as the failed design, but with deck_gap raised from 0.028 to 0.04 since the thicker plate_thickness_scale=1.0 stack consumes more of the standoff and starved rotor-to-deck clearance at the smaller gap.
- g17 `83f19dec` fitness 6.475 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate pure aerodynamic stance from the mass penalty that sank every prior wide-sweep attempt: push both sweeps well past stock (front +12, rear +14) with plate scales grown generously (1.28/1.24) to keep the tongue bolts safely seated, while leaving the elite's thin floor-mass carbon arms completely untouched.
- g18 `7adc86c1` fitness 6.646 Wh/km-agg — was: Stake out a genuinely wide-stance aero region by combining far-from-stock sweeps (front 43, rear 52, plate scales grown per the 0.1-per-5-deg rule) with an untested 8-deg battery wedge, isolating a combined frontal/side-profile reduction strategy for crosswind and cold_headwind that no prior single-axis sweep or wedge pivot tested together.
- g18 `d8d770d5` INVALID (arm tip deflection (asa)) — was: Switch away from carbon to a tough, damped ASA build (material 0.9) with thickness, width and waist properly compensated (arm_thickness 0.006, waist relaxed to 0.85 to remove a pinch-point resonance node, plate_thickness_scale 1.0) to test whether damage tolerance under gust loading can genuinely cut the storm penalty that dominates the fitness function, unlike prior uncompensated material pivots 
- g19 `0e35d1c3` fitness 6.588 Wh/km-agg — was: Same combined wide-stance-plus-battery-wedge frontal-area pivot as the failed design, but grow plate_length/width_scale to 1.28/1.24 -- the pairing already proven to keep the tongue bolts seated at this exact +12.6/+14 deg sweep deviation -- instead of the too-thin 1.22/1.18 that let them miss the main plate.
- g19 `624da8bb` INVALID (arm resonance with rotor 1P) — was: The elite family shares a floor-thickness, minimum-mass build where every attempt to add stiffness got starved by mass penalty — so isolate the opposite extreme (near-max arm width/waist/thickness plus near-max plate thickness, sweep held at stock and deck_gap generously raised for stack clearance) to see whether real structural stiffness ever pays off for storm once mass is not being traded piece
- g20 `21664820` fitness 8.018 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family's floor-thickness/min-width/min-waist arms have exhausted every mass-reduction lever without denting the storm penalty; combine the two previously-isolated promising stiffness levers -- waist decoupling (arm_waist_scale=1.2, no pinch point, scored 6.630 alone) and deck/core stiffening (plate_thickness_scale=1.35, deck_gap=0.040, scored 6.504 alone) -- into one genuinely stiff-arm,
- g20 `cc53cd9d` fitness 6.514 Wh/km-agg — was: Every material pivot away from carbon has failed validity because it kept the elite's thin-shell dimensions unchanged; properly compensate PA12-CF's higher density and lower stiffness this time (arm_thickness raised to 0.006 to fix the repeated pa12_cf tip-deflection failure, plate_thickness_scale raised to 1.0, well above the 0.8 printed-material floor) to cleanly test whether its damage toleranc
- g20 `f45e862c` fitness 6.619 Wh/km-agg — was: Battery wedge is the only frontal-area lever that ever came close to the elite in isolation (wedge=14 scored 6.371) while every symmetric sweep-widening attempt lost to its own plate-mass penalty, so push wedge to its true max (15) and pair it with an asymmetric tight-nose/wide-tail sweep (front at the 30 deg floor, rear opened to 46) to shift the aerodynamic center for storm/crosswind stability i
- g21 `5e6a89c8` fitness 6.504 Wh/km-agg — was: Battery wedge and deck_gap have each been isolated before (both landing worse than elite alone) but never combined; this pivot pushes both to near their maxima together -- generous deck_gap (0.043) giving the max battery tilt (15 deg) safe rotor/battery clearance -- with moderate (not elite-extreme) arm_length_scale (1.15) and stock sweep, testing whether the clearance-vs-wedge interaction unlocks
- g21 `8b5de20a` fitness 8.053 Wh/km-agg — was: Same genuine wide/thick/no-pinch arm stiffness test as the failed design, but the short arm_length_scale=0.85 was shrinking motor separation enough to overlap rotor disks, so arm_length_scale is raised to 1.1 for safe tip clearance, and sweep is nudged off the tongue-collision-prone minimum (front 38/rear 44, with plate scales grown 0.1 to match) instead of sitting right near the 33/38 near-minimu
- g22 `245f65ba` fitness 6.172 Wh/km-agg — was: Same short-arm, high-disk-loading pivot away from the elite family's long-arm floor-mass shape, but the rotor/deck clearance failure is fixed by raising deck_gap from 0.026 to 0.038 (well clear of the FC/battery stack) with a small plate-scale margin bump for the moderate sweep spread.
- g22 `6e14487e` fitness 6.737 Wh/km-agg — was: Every previous ASA/PA12-CF/PET-CF/PETG pivot under-compensated on only one axis (thickness alone) and failed validity or scored worse; this fully compensates a tough, damped ASA build simultaneously across arm_thickness (near-max), waist (relaxed to remove the pinch-point resonance node), shortened arm_length (less moment arm), and plate_thickness (well above the printed floor) to give damage-tole
- g22 `8eef9a02` fitness 6.548 Wh/km-agg — was: Prior wide-sweep-plus-wedge attempts always paired a tight front with a wide rear; the reverse asymmetry (wide front, tight rear) shifting the aero center forward, combined with max battery wedge, has never been tested and could better address crosswind/cold_headwind while keeping the proven thin-mass carbon arms untouched.
- g24 `720187ca` fitness 6.204 Wh/km-agg — was: Layer a mild, previously-untested plate_thickness_scale bump (0.85, well below the 1.25-1.35 extremes that always lost to mass penalty) onto elite frame 83's exact proven geometry, isolating whether a small core-stiffness increment trims the storm penalty without the mass cost that sank every prior aggressive core-stiffening attempt.
- g24 `a5e05228` fitness 6.360 Wh/km-agg — was: Decouple root stiffness from tip drag by moderately widening only the arm root (arm_width_scale=0.95) while keeping the waist at the proven floor (0.55) for a tapered thick-root/thin-tip profile -- every prior stiffness pivot widened width AND waist together and always lost, so this isolates root-only reinforcement against storm gust torque without the uniform-width mass/drag penalty.
- g24 `b5fd89cd` fitness 6.144 Wh/km-agg — was: Same short-arm, high-disk-loading pivot as the failed design, but raise arm_length_scale from 0.76 to 0.83 (still shorter than every current elite's floor of 0.884) to restore rotor-tip clearance at this sweep, keeping width/waist/thickness/sweep/plate/deck_gap/material identical to isolate exactly how short the arms can go before disk overlap trumps mass savings.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 17, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 11, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 19, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 12, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 3 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 PIVOTAL designs that abandon that trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space. Do NOT refine the elites — a pivot that lands near them is a wasted round. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate d1bffb11 — The entire elite family shares maximal arm_length compression (0.83-0.92, far below the 1.35 ceiling) - every mass lever has been squeezed on that axis but disk-loading itself has never been isolated, so push arm_length_scale to 1.30 (longer arms only increase rotor separation, so tip-overlap risk drops rather than rises) while holding every other gene at the proven floor-mass carbon values to tesflew at 6.358 Wh/km
candidate 6125754b — Every prior waist pivot bundled the waist change with a root-width increase and always lost to the combined mass penalty or triggered resonance; this isolates the mid-shaft taper alone by keeping arm_width_scale at the elite floor (0.75) and removing the pinch (arm_waist_scale raised to 1.00, well short of the 1.2+ combos that previously failed) with only a token thickness nudge for safety, testinflew at 6.355 Wh/km
candidate 8cfdbc77 — Every material pivot away from carbon has failed validity or scored worse because each only over-compensated one axis at a time; this abandons carbon outright for PET-CF (material=0.40) while applying every lesson learned at once - thickness raised well past every previous tip-deflection failure point (0.007), waist relaxed to remove the pinch resonance node (0.85), width nudged up for margin (0.8flew at 6.711 Wh/km

b5fd89cd1e22

6.144 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.24
cold_headwind	3.91
crosswind	3.77
gusty_light	3.62
hot_thin	3.46
storm	4.72

a4a39e5410fe

6.165 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.25
cold_headwind	3.93
crosswind	3.78
gusty_light	3.64
hot_thin	3.47
storm	4.73

4c9c6a903ca4

6.167 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.25
cold_headwind	3.93
crosswind	3.78
gusty_light	3.64
hot_thin	3.47
storm	4.73

f3cb3649708a

6.234 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.28
cold_headwind	3.97
crosswind	3.83
gusty_light	3.68
hot_thin	3.50
storm	4.79

bb796a896215

6.236 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.29
cold_headwind	3.98
crosswind	3.83
gusty_light	3.68
hot_thin	3.51
storm	4.78

d3b9912dbce2

6.257 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	3.98
crosswind	3.84
gusty_light	3.69
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.80

a31acf8f4b6e

6.279 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	4.01
crosswind	3.85
gusty_light	3.70
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.82

6125754bf985

6.355 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.34
cold_headwind	4.06
crosswind	3.90
gusty_light	3.74
hot_thin	3.57
storm	4.88

d1bffb1194ce

6.358 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.33
cold_headwind	4.08
crosswind	3.91
gusty_light	3.74
hot_thin	3.55
storm	4.88

8cfdbc772b8d

6.711 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.52
cold_headwind	4.31
crosswind	4.13
gusty_light	3.95
hot_thin	3.75
storm	5.15

150e7307c260

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

c5895cd1ca22

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

d6a34cd3d79f

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

b908bd5d3853

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

edcfb434be83

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

f1e6ec0c92fb

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_top 1.01 mm, stock 1.75 mm)

generation 25

b5fd89cd1e22

6.144 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.24
cold_headwind	3.91
crosswind	3.77
gusty_light	3.62
hot_thin	3.46
storm	4.72

a4a39e5410fe

6.165 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.25
cold_headwind	3.93
crosswind	3.78
gusty_light	3.64
hot_thin	3.47
storm	4.73

f321be7fc2ea

6.218 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.28
cold_headwind	3.96
crosswind	3.82
gusty_light	3.67
hot_thin	3.50
storm	4.77

4bd04d28f4fd

6.252 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	3.99
crosswind	3.84
gusty_light	3.69
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.80

c242efc28261

6.263 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	3.99
crosswind	3.85
gusty_light	3.69
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.81

b127b1130025

6.285 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.31
cold_headwind	4.01
crosswind	3.86
gusty_light	3.70
hot_thin	3.53
storm	4.82

ea79cd197813

6.302 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.33
cold_headwind	4.01
crosswind	3.87
gusty_light	3.72
hot_thin	3.55
storm	4.83

fb02c87c4367

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

328a9378743e

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

438d40390d5f

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

c1b8464d240c

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

996b5884da8b

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pla_plus (1.6 < 1.6 mm)

a375c82f0768

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

80f9d365c89e

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

c9ae43e3c5c7

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

d4b23e70f27d

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

generation 24

inputs

✦ claude designer · scheduled round · 3 design(s) injected, 1 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	11

mutation σ 0.087 of gene range
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 24 · scheduled round · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.75..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.55..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.004..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.7..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257, g21 6.257, g22 6.172, g23 6.165 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 1 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.165 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8841, "arm_width_scale": 0.7766, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 35.7361, "rear_sweep_deg": 41.2361, "plate_length_scale": 1.02, "plate_width_scale": 1.0182, "deck_gap": 0.0373, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.5978, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1232} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.25, "cold_headwind": 3.93, "crosswind": 3.78, "gusty_light": 3.64, "hot_thin": 3.47, "storm": 4.73}
fitness 6.172 Wh/km-agg, frame 84 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.92, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 36.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.0, "plate_length_scale": 1.02, "plate_width_scale": 1.02, "deck_gap": 0.038, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.05} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.25, "cold_headwind": 3.93, "crosswind": 3.79, "gusty_light": 3.64, "hot_thin": 3.47, "storm": 4.74}
fitness 6.216 Wh/km-agg, frame 86 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.8984, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 37.3254, "rear_sweep_deg": 41.5762, "plate_length_scale": 1.0184, "plate_width_scale": 1.0207, "deck_gap": 0.0368, "battery_wedge_deg": 2.6052, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0552} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.28, "cold_headwind": 3.96, "crosswind": 3.81, "gusty_light": 3.67, "hot_thin": 3.5, "storm": 4.77}
fitness 6.251 Wh/km-agg, frame 88 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.0459, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 37.458, "rear_sweep_deg": 41.9843, "plate_length_scale": 1.0288, "plate_width_scale": 1.0249, "deck_gap": 0.0381, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1072} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.29, "cold_headwind": 4.0, "crosswind": 3.83, "gusty_light": 3.68, "hot_thin": 3.51, "storm": 4.8}
fitness 6.257 Wh/km-agg, frame 91 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2731, "arm_width_scale": 0.7651, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.4559, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.1765, "plate_length_scale": 0.9681, "plate_width_scale": 0.9972, "deck_gap": 0.0261, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1254} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.3, "cold_headwind": 3.99, "crosswind": 3.85, "gusty_light": 3.69, "hot_thin": 3.52, "storm": 4.8}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g15 `4e66ffd7` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Re-isolate the untested tough ASA material (0.75) against the all-carbon elite family, keeping the same generous arm geometry as the failed attempt but raising deck_gap to 0.042 and trimming plate_thickness_scale to 0.85 (still above the printed-material 0.8 floor) to clear the deck/battery stack.
- g15 `a55c3afa` fitness 7.773 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-stiffness pivot away from the elite family's thin/minimum-mass arms (wide arm_width=1.4, no waist narrowing, thick arm_thickness=0.007, carbon) that failed only on rotor/deck clearance -- fixed by raising deck_gap from the failed 0.027 to 0.04, well clear of the stack.
- g16 `a072202c` fitness 6.630 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite sits at the arm_waist_scale floor (0.55, maximum mid-shaft narrowing) paired with minimum width -- this pivot decouples the two, isolating waist taper as its own stiffness lever by raising arm_waist_scale to 1.10 (near-constant arm width along the shaft, no pinch point to flex/resonate under storm gusts) while keeping arm_width_scale, arm_thickness, sweep and plate geometry at the elit
- g16 `cadb6dac` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Prior material pivots away from carbon always failed validity (arm tip deflection / plate-web-too-thin) because they kept the elite's thin-waist thin-arm shape unchanged for a lower-modulus polymer -- this pivot properly compensates by isolating PETG (damped, tough) with arm_thickness raised to 0.0065 and arm_waist_scale relaxed to 0.80 to prevent tip deflection, and plate_thickness_scale set to 1
- g16 `f2511166` fitness 6.641 Wh/km-agg — was: Replaces the failed 14-deg rear-sweep pivot: trims the deviation to 10 deg past stock and grows plate_length/width_scale to 1.22/1.25 (above the prior 1.15/1.2 that let the tongue bolts miss the main plate) while keeping the same lean thin-arm carbon build to isolate wide-stance stiffness from mass penalties.
- g17 `232aae29` fitness 6.504 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior storm-stiffness pivot added mass to the arms and made the aggregate worse, so instead stiffen the deck/standoff core (deck_gap raised to 0.040, plate_thickness_scale raised to 1.25) while keeping the proven thin-arm, stock-sweep, low-drag geometry completely unchanged, isolating core stiffness from arm stiffness for the first time.
- g17 `41f6a585` fitness 6.769 Wh/km-agg — was: Same PLA+ stiff-arm/thick-plate pivot as the failed design, but with deck_gap raised from 0.028 to 0.04 since the thicker plate_thickness_scale=1.0 stack consumes more of the standoff and starved rotor-to-deck clearance at the smaller gap.
- g17 `83f19dec` fitness 6.475 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate pure aerodynamic stance from the mass penalty that sank every prior wide-sweep attempt: push both sweeps well past stock (front +12, rear +14) with plate scales grown generously (1.28/1.24) to keep the tongue bolts safely seated, while leaving the elite's thin floor-mass carbon arms completely untouched.
- g18 `7adc86c1` fitness 6.646 Wh/km-agg — was: Stake out a genuinely wide-stance aero region by combining far-from-stock sweeps (front 43, rear 52, plate scales grown per the 0.1-per-5-deg rule) with an untested 8-deg battery wedge, isolating a combined frontal/side-profile reduction strategy for crosswind and cold_headwind that no prior single-axis sweep or wedge pivot tested together.
- g18 `d8d770d5` INVALID (arm tip deflection (asa)) — was: Switch away from carbon to a tough, damped ASA build (material 0.9) with thickness, width and waist properly compensated (arm_thickness 0.006, waist relaxed to 0.85 to remove a pinch-point resonance node, plate_thickness_scale 1.0) to test whether damage tolerance under gust loading can genuinely cut the storm penalty that dominates the fitness function, unlike prior uncompensated material pivots 
- g19 `0e35d1c3` fitness 6.588 Wh/km-agg — was: Same combined wide-stance-plus-battery-wedge frontal-area pivot as the failed design, but grow plate_length/width_scale to 1.28/1.24 -- the pairing already proven to keep the tongue bolts seated at this exact +12.6/+14 deg sweep deviation -- instead of the too-thin 1.22/1.18 that let them miss the main plate.
- g19 `624da8bb` INVALID (arm resonance with rotor 1P) — was: The elite family shares a floor-thickness, minimum-mass build where every attempt to add stiffness got starved by mass penalty — so isolate the opposite extreme (near-max arm width/waist/thickness plus near-max plate thickness, sweep held at stock and deck_gap generously raised for stack clearance) to see whether real structural stiffness ever pays off for storm once mass is not being traded piece
- g20 `21664820` fitness 8.018 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family's floor-thickness/min-width/min-waist arms have exhausted every mass-reduction lever without denting the storm penalty; combine the two previously-isolated promising stiffness levers -- waist decoupling (arm_waist_scale=1.2, no pinch point, scored 6.630 alone) and deck/core stiffening (plate_thickness_scale=1.35, deck_gap=0.040, scored 6.504 alone) -- into one genuinely stiff-arm,
- g20 `cc53cd9d` fitness 6.514 Wh/km-agg — was: Every material pivot away from carbon has failed validity because it kept the elite's thin-shell dimensions unchanged; properly compensate PA12-CF's higher density and lower stiffness this time (arm_thickness raised to 0.006 to fix the repeated pa12_cf tip-deflection failure, plate_thickness_scale raised to 1.0, well above the 0.8 printed-material floor) to cleanly test whether its damage toleranc
- g20 `f45e862c` fitness 6.619 Wh/km-agg — was: Battery wedge is the only frontal-area lever that ever came close to the elite in isolation (wedge=14 scored 6.371) while every symmetric sweep-widening attempt lost to its own plate-mass penalty, so push wedge to its true max (15) and pair it with an asymmetric tight-nose/wide-tail sweep (front at the 30 deg floor, rear opened to 46) to shift the aerodynamic center for storm/crosswind stability i
- g21 `5e6a89c8` fitness 6.504 Wh/km-agg — was: Battery wedge and deck_gap have each been isolated before (both landing worse than elite alone) but never combined; this pivot pushes both to near their maxima together -- generous deck_gap (0.043) giving the max battery tilt (15 deg) safe rotor/battery clearance -- with moderate (not elite-extreme) arm_length_scale (1.15) and stock sweep, testing whether the clearance-vs-wedge interaction unlocks
- g21 `8b5de20a` fitness 8.053 Wh/km-agg — was: Same genuine wide/thick/no-pinch arm stiffness test as the failed design, but the short arm_length_scale=0.85 was shrinking motor separation enough to overlap rotor disks, so arm_length_scale is raised to 1.1 for safe tip clearance, and sweep is nudged off the tongue-collision-prone minimum (front 38/rear 44, with plate scales grown 0.1 to match) instead of sitting right near the 33/38 near-minimu
- g22 `245f65ba` fitness 6.172 Wh/km-agg — was: Same short-arm, high-disk-loading pivot away from the elite family's long-arm floor-mass shape, but the rotor/deck clearance failure is fixed by raising deck_gap from 0.026 to 0.038 (well clear of the FC/battery stack) with a small plate-scale margin bump for the moderate sweep spread.
- g22 `6e14487e` fitness 6.737 Wh/km-agg — was: Every previous ASA/PA12-CF/PET-CF/PETG pivot under-compensated on only one axis (thickness alone) and failed validity or scored worse; this fully compensates a tough, damped ASA build simultaneously across arm_thickness (near-max), waist (relaxed to remove the pinch-point resonance node), shortened arm_length (less moment arm), and plate_thickness (well above the printed floor) to give damage-tole
- g22 `8eef9a02` fitness 6.548 Wh/km-agg — was: Prior wide-sweep-plus-wedge attempts always paired a tight front with a wide rear; the reverse asymmetry (wide front, tight rear) shifting the aero center forward, combined with max battery wedge, has never been tested and could better address crosswind/cold_headwind while keeping the proven thin-mass carbon arms untouched.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 15, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 15, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 15, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 7, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 18, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 10, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

Propose exactly 3 NEW genome vectors that are meaningfully DIFFERENT from the elites and from each other — design hypotheses, not small perturbations. Build on what the trajectory and your earlier proposals' outcomes show worked; avoid repeating what failed. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate a5e05228 — Decouple root stiffness from tip drag by moderately widening only the arm root (arm_width_scale=0.95) while keeping the waist at the proven floor (0.55) for a tapered thick-root/thin-tip profile -- every prior stiffness pivot widened width AND waist together and always lost, so this isolates root-only reinforcement against storm gust torque without the uniform-width mass/drag penalty.flew at 6.360 Wh/km
candidate 720187ca — Layer a mild, previously-untested plate_thickness_scale bump (0.85, well below the 1.25-1.35 extremes that always lost to mass penalty) onto elite frame 83's exact proven geometry, isolating whether a small core-stiffness increment trims the storm penalty without the mass cost that sank every prior aggressive core-stiffening attempt.flew at 6.204 Wh/km
candidate b5fd89cd — Same short-arm, high-disk-loading pivot as the failed design, but raise arm_length_scale from 0.76 to 0.83 (still shorter than every current elite's floor of 0.884) to restore rotor-tip clearance at this sweep, keeping width/waist/thickness/sweep/plate/deck_gap/material identical to isolate exactly how short the arms can go before disk overlap trumps mass savings.flew at 6.144 Wh/km
candidate b0466997 — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Push arm_length_scale to the true genome floor (0.76), well below any elite's tested minimum (0.884), at the exact sweep/deck_gap combo already proven safe by elite frame 84 -- the g22 short-arm pivot to 6.172 hinted lower disk loading keeps paying off, so isolate the extreme low end cleanly.

b5fd89cd1e22

6.144 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.24
cold_headwind	3.91
crosswind	3.77
gusty_light	3.62
hot_thin	3.46
storm	4.72

a4a39e5410fe

6.165 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.25
cold_headwind	3.93
crosswind	3.78
gusty_light	3.64
hot_thin	3.47
storm	4.73

245f65ba6586

6.172 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.25
cold_headwind	3.93
crosswind	3.79
gusty_light	3.64
hot_thin	3.47
storm	4.74

da2dd8d05668

6.199 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.28
cold_headwind	3.94
crosswind	3.80
gusty_light	3.66
hot_thin	3.49
storm	4.75

720187ca68c8

6.204 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.27
cold_headwind	3.94
crosswind	3.81
gusty_light	3.66
hot_thin	3.49
storm	4.76

0cd370019308

6.241 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.29
cold_headwind	3.98
crosswind	3.83
gusty_light	3.68
hot_thin	3.51
storm	4.79

5bebc5dacd96

6.311 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.33
cold_headwind	4.02
crosswind	3.88
gusty_light	3.72
hot_thin	3.55
storm	4.84

9f7085e5999a

6.321 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.32
cold_headwind	4.04
crosswind	3.88
gusty_light	3.72
hot_thin	3.54
storm	4.85

0fb992acf725

6.325 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.33
cold_headwind	4.04
crosswind	3.89
gusty_light	3.73
hot_thin	3.55
storm	4.85

a5e052287a6b

6.360 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.34
cold_headwind	4.07
crosswind	3.91
gusty_light	3.75
hot_thin	3.56
storm	4.88

8b748ed1a775

6.453 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.38
cold_headwind	4.15
crosswind	3.96
gusty_light	3.79
hot_thin	3.61
storm	4.96

f061d93bb172

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

3822abdf372d

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)

f78c8b2017ba

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)

887136a7a6fe

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

37fc9305d30c

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)

generation 23

a4a39e5410fe

6.165 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.25
cold_headwind	3.93
crosswind	3.78
gusty_light	3.64
hot_thin	3.47
storm	4.73

245f65ba6586

6.172 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.25
cold_headwind	3.93
crosswind	3.79
gusty_light	3.64
hot_thin	3.47
storm	4.74

fa569e2ab088

6.216 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.28
cold_headwind	3.96
crosswind	3.81
gusty_light	3.67
hot_thin	3.50
storm	4.77

11f493f72da5

6.251 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.29
cold_headwind	4.00
crosswind	3.83
gusty_light	3.68
hot_thin	3.51
storm	4.80

54a73703249e

6.257 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	3.99
crosswind	3.85
gusty_light	3.69
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.80

a51008a41c5c

6.273 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	4.00
crosswind	3.86
gusty_light	3.70
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.81

62627086f773

6.291 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.31
cold_headwind	4.02
crosswind	3.87
gusty_light	3.71
hot_thin	3.53
storm	4.83

1f1500f3aa17

6.292 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.32
cold_headwind	4.02
crosswind	3.86
gusty_light	3.71
hot_thin	3.53
storm	4.83

b0162c244cd9

6.343 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.34
cold_headwind	4.05
crosswind	3.90
gusty_light	3.74
hot_thin	3.56
storm	4.87

ca3dd4c695e5

6.438 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.37
cold_headwind	4.14
crosswind	3.95
gusty_light	3.79
hot_thin	3.60
storm	4.95

a2236bd22252

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

8570e3a5490e

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)

5e50f4967e91

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

a24d007f8f5a

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)

cb7ff74a6cc7

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

c1a8bf20bf2b

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

generation 22

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 3 design(s) injected, 1 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	3
pivot crosses (far parent)	7
random immigrants	1

mutation σ 0.092 of gene range
pivot σ 0.147 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 22 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.75..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.55..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.004..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.7..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257, g21 6.257 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 12 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.257 Wh/km-agg, frame 91 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2731, "arm_width_scale": 0.7651, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.4559, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.1765, "plate_length_scale": 0.9681, "plate_width_scale": 0.9972, "deck_gap": 0.0261, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1254} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.3, "cold_headwind": 3.99, "crosswind": 3.85, "gusty_light": 3.69, "hot_thin": 3.52, "storm": 4.8}
fitness 6.274 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3072, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.8, "rear_sweep_deg": 39.3318, "plate_length_scale": 0.97, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.3, "cold_headwind": 4.0, "crosswind": 3.86, "gusty_light": 3.7, "hot_thin": 3.52, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.284 Wh/km-agg, frame 91 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2628, "arm_width_scale": 0.7708, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5502, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 48.7313, "rear_sweep_deg": 35.7084, "plate_length_scale": 0.9764, "plate_width_scale": 1.0011, "deck_gap": 0.0232, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0001} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.32, "cold_headwind": 4.01, "crosswind": 3.85, "gusty_light": 3.7, "hot_thin": 3.54, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.286 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2981, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5858, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.4578, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.2882, "plate_length_scale": 0.9697, "plate_width_scale": 0.9972, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1202} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.31, "cold_headwind": 4.01, "crosswind": 3.87, "gusty_light": 3.71, "hot_thin": 3.53, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.289 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3042, "arm_width_scale": 0.7603, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 32.1774, "rear_sweep_deg": 39.3405, "plate_length_scale": 0.9714, "plate_width_scale": 1.0101, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0005} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.31, "cold_headwind": 4.02, "crosswind": 3.87, "gusty_light": 3.71, "hot_thin": 3.53, "storm": 4.83}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g14 `19c8d082` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pet_cf)) — was: Every elite uses material near 0.0 (pure carbon) because prior non-carbon attempts bundled the material switch with a heavy 'storm bruiser' stance that ate the mass budget, so this pivot isolates the material axis alone -- keep the proven elite-shaped long-arm, low-drag, near-stock-sweep geometry intact but swap to PET-CF (0.40) with plate_thickness_scale raised to 0.90 to meet the printed-materia
- g14 `e8b47537` fitness 6.371 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test the untested battery_wedge_deg=14 frontal-area-reduction dimension, fixing the rotor-tip-clearance failure by raising arm_length_scale from the failed 0.9 to a safe 1.2 while leaving sweep, plate scales and material untouched so only the battery tilt is isolated.
- g15 `470c4fea` fitness 6.574 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite also sits at the plate_thickness_scale floor (0.7-0.76) with a tight deck_gap (0.025-0.026) -- deck/standoff stiffness and rotor-to-deck clearance under gust loading have never been tested independently of arm geometry or a mass-adding stance change, so this pivot keeps the elite's low-drag floor-thin arms and stock sweep untouched but pushes plate_thickness_scale near its max and deck
- g15 `4e66ffd7` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Re-isolate the untested tough ASA material (0.75) against the all-carbon elite family, keeping the same generous arm geometry as the failed attempt but raising deck_gap to 0.042 and trimming plate_thickness_scale to 0.85 (still above the printed-material 0.8 floor) to clear the deck/battery stack.
- g15 `a55c3afa` fitness 7.773 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-stiffness pivot away from the elite family's thin/minimum-mass arms (wide arm_width=1.4, no waist narrowing, thick arm_thickness=0.007, carbon) that failed only on rotor/deck clearance -- fixed by raising deck_gap from the failed 0.027 to 0.04, well clear of the stack.
- g16 `a072202c` fitness 6.630 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite sits at the arm_waist_scale floor (0.55, maximum mid-shaft narrowing) paired with minimum width -- this pivot decouples the two, isolating waist taper as its own stiffness lever by raising arm_waist_scale to 1.10 (near-constant arm width along the shaft, no pinch point to flex/resonate under storm gusts) while keeping arm_width_scale, arm_thickness, sweep and plate geometry at the elit
- g16 `cadb6dac` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Prior material pivots away from carbon always failed validity (arm tip deflection / plate-web-too-thin) because they kept the elite's thin-waist thin-arm shape unchanged for a lower-modulus polymer -- this pivot properly compensates by isolating PETG (damped, tough) with arm_thickness raised to 0.0065 and arm_waist_scale relaxed to 0.80 to prevent tip deflection, and plate_thickness_scale set to 1
- g16 `f2511166` fitness 6.641 Wh/km-agg — was: Replaces the failed 14-deg rear-sweep pivot: trims the deviation to 10 deg past stock and grows plate_length/width_scale to 1.22/1.25 (above the prior 1.15/1.2 that let the tongue bolts miss the main plate) while keeping the same lean thin-arm carbon build to isolate wide-stance stiffness from mass penalties.
- g17 `232aae29` fitness 6.504 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior storm-stiffness pivot added mass to the arms and made the aggregate worse, so instead stiffen the deck/standoff core (deck_gap raised to 0.040, plate_thickness_scale raised to 1.25) while keeping the proven thin-arm, stock-sweep, low-drag geometry completely unchanged, isolating core stiffness from arm stiffness for the first time.
- g17 `41f6a585` fitness 6.769 Wh/km-agg — was: Same PLA+ stiff-arm/thick-plate pivot as the failed design, but with deck_gap raised from 0.028 to 0.04 since the thicker plate_thickness_scale=1.0 stack consumes more of the standoff and starved rotor-to-deck clearance at the smaller gap.
- g17 `83f19dec` fitness 6.475 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate pure aerodynamic stance from the mass penalty that sank every prior wide-sweep attempt: push both sweeps well past stock (front +12, rear +14) with plate scales grown generously (1.28/1.24) to keep the tongue bolts safely seated, while leaving the elite's thin floor-mass carbon arms completely untouched.
- g18 `7adc86c1` fitness 6.646 Wh/km-agg — was: Stake out a genuinely wide-stance aero region by combining far-from-stock sweeps (front 43, rear 52, plate scales grown per the 0.1-per-5-deg rule) with an untested 8-deg battery wedge, isolating a combined frontal/side-profile reduction strategy for crosswind and cold_headwind that no prior single-axis sweep or wedge pivot tested together.
- g18 `d8d770d5` INVALID (arm tip deflection (asa)) — was: Switch away from carbon to a tough, damped ASA build (material 0.9) with thickness, width and waist properly compensated (arm_thickness 0.006, waist relaxed to 0.85 to remove a pinch-point resonance node, plate_thickness_scale 1.0) to test whether damage tolerance under gust loading can genuinely cut the storm penalty that dominates the fitness function, unlike prior uncompensated material pivots 
- g19 `0e35d1c3` fitness 6.588 Wh/km-agg — was: Same combined wide-stance-plus-battery-wedge frontal-area pivot as the failed design, but grow plate_length/width_scale to 1.28/1.24 -- the pairing already proven to keep the tongue bolts seated at this exact +12.6/+14 deg sweep deviation -- instead of the too-thin 1.22/1.18 that let them miss the main plate.
- g19 `624da8bb` INVALID (arm resonance with rotor 1P) — was: The elite family shares a floor-thickness, minimum-mass build where every attempt to add stiffness got starved by mass penalty — so isolate the opposite extreme (near-max arm width/waist/thickness plus near-max plate thickness, sweep held at stock and deck_gap generously raised for stack clearance) to see whether real structural stiffness ever pays off for storm once mass is not being traded piece
- g20 `21664820` fitness 8.018 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family's floor-thickness/min-width/min-waist arms have exhausted every mass-reduction lever without denting the storm penalty; combine the two previously-isolated promising stiffness levers -- waist decoupling (arm_waist_scale=1.2, no pinch point, scored 6.630 alone) and deck/core stiffening (plate_thickness_scale=1.35, deck_gap=0.040, scored 6.504 alone) -- into one genuinely stiff-arm,
- g20 `cc53cd9d` fitness 6.514 Wh/km-agg — was: Every material pivot away from carbon has failed validity because it kept the elite's thin-shell dimensions unchanged; properly compensate PA12-CF's higher density and lower stiffness this time (arm_thickness raised to 0.006 to fix the repeated pa12_cf tip-deflection failure, plate_thickness_scale raised to 1.0, well above the 0.8 printed-material floor) to cleanly test whether its damage toleranc
- g20 `f45e862c` fitness 6.619 Wh/km-agg — was: Battery wedge is the only frontal-area lever that ever came close to the elite in isolation (wedge=14 scored 6.371) while every symmetric sweep-widening attempt lost to its own plate-mass penalty, so push wedge to its true max (15) and pair it with an asymmetric tight-nose/wide-tail sweep (front at the 30 deg floor, rear opened to 46) to shift the aerodynamic center for storm/crosswind stability i
- g21 `5e6a89c8` fitness 6.504 Wh/km-agg — was: Battery wedge and deck_gap have each been isolated before (both landing worse than elite alone) but never combined; this pivot pushes both to near their maxima together -- generous deck_gap (0.043) giving the max battery tilt (15 deg) safe rotor/battery clearance -- with moderate (not elite-extreme) arm_length_scale (1.15) and stock sweep, testing whether the clearance-vs-wedge interaction unlocks
- g21 `8b5de20a` fitness 8.053 Wh/km-agg — was: Same genuine wide/thick/no-pinch arm stiffness test as the failed design, but the short arm_length_scale=0.85 was shrinking motor separation enough to overlap rotor disks, so arm_length_scale is raised to 1.1 for safe tip clearance, and sweep is nudged off the tongue-collision-prone minimum (front 38/rear 44, with plate scales grown 0.1 to match) instead of sitting right near the 33/38 near-minimu

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 14, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 13, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 12, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 7, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 18, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 8, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 12 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 PIVOTAL designs that abandon that trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space. Do NOT refine the elites — a pivot that lands near them is a wasted round. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 8eef9a02 — Prior wide-sweep-plus-wedge attempts always paired a tight front with a wide rear; the reverse asymmetry (wide front, tight rear) shifting the aero center forward, combined with max battery wedge, has never been tested and could better address crosswind/cold_headwind while keeping the proven thin-mass carbon arms untouched.flew at 6.548 Wh/km
candidate 6e14487e — Every previous ASA/PA12-CF/PET-CF/PETG pivot under-compensated on only one axis (thickness alone) and failed validity or scored worse; this fully compensates a tough, damped ASA build simultaneously across arm_thickness (near-max), waist (relaxed to remove the pinch-point resonance node), shortened arm_length (less moment arm), and plate_thickness (well above the printed floor) to give damage-toleflew at 6.737 Wh/km
candidate 245f65ba — Same short-arm, high-disk-loading pivot away from the elite family's long-arm floor-mass shape, but the rotor/deck clearance failure is fixed by raising deck_gap from 0.026 to 0.038 (well clear of the FC/battery stack) with a small plate-scale margin bump for the moderate sweep spread.flew at 6.172 Wh/km
candidate 2c4ae066 — rejected pre-flight (rotor too close to deck/battery) — Every elite sits at max arm_length_scale (1.26-1.31, near-maximum wheelbase/disk loading) — the opposite short-wheelbase, high-disk-loading region has never been validly tested with the elite's proven thin-shell mass floor, so this isolates wheelbase/moment-arm length as its own axis, moderating sweep off the collision-prone minimum for tongue clearance.

245f65ba6586

6.172 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.25
cold_headwind	3.93
crosswind	3.79
gusty_light	3.64
hot_thin	3.47
storm	4.74

54a73703249e

6.257 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	3.99
crosswind	3.85
gusty_light	3.69
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.80

1704aea48de9

6.274 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	4.00
crosswind	3.86
gusty_light	3.70
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.82

265368e82bb5

6.299 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.32
cold_headwind	4.02
crosswind	3.88
gusty_light	3.71
hot_thin	3.54
storm	4.83

1e7b04b153a0

6.305 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.32
cold_headwind	4.03
crosswind	3.88
gusty_light	3.72
hot_thin	3.54
storm	4.84

5f015dd86b15

6.394 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.35
cold_headwind	4.12
crosswind	3.93
gusty_light	3.76
hot_thin	3.57
storm	4.91

300292d08250

6.493 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.41
cold_headwind	4.18
crosswind	3.99
gusty_light	3.82
hot_thin	3.63
storm	4.98

8eef9a028a5b

6.548 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.45
cold_headwind	4.22
crosswind	4.02
gusty_light	3.85
hot_thin	3.66
storm	5.02

6e14487e2184

6.737 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.51
cold_headwind	4.37
crosswind	4.16
gusty_light	3.96
hot_thin	3.74
storm	5.17

749340067f79

7.107 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.70
cold_headwind	4.62
crosswind	4.37
gusty_light	4.16
hot_thin	3.94
storm	5.46

afc163a5abbd

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

c6ca93d8c9f0

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)

f1ed396d782b

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

3bf89209f7be

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

89450dd39ffd

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)

7a302a4e9adc

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

generation 21

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 2 design(s) injected, 3 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	2
crossovers (tournament parents)	3
mutants (single parent)	2
pivot crosses (far parent)	7

mutation σ 0.095 of gene range
pivot σ 0.152 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 21 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.75..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.55..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.004..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.7..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257, g20 6.257 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 11 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.257 Wh/km-agg, frame 91 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2731, "arm_width_scale": 0.7651, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.4559, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.1765, "plate_length_scale": 0.9681, "plate_width_scale": 0.9972, "deck_gap": 0.0261, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1254} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.3, "cold_headwind": 3.99, "crosswind": 3.85, "gusty_light": 3.69, "hot_thin": 3.52, "storm": 4.8}
fitness 6.274 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3072, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.8, "rear_sweep_deg": 39.3318, "plate_length_scale": 0.97, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.3, "cold_headwind": 4.0, "crosswind": 3.86, "gusty_light": 3.7, "hot_thin": 3.52, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.284 Wh/km-agg, frame 91 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2628, "arm_width_scale": 0.7708, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5502, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 48.7313, "rear_sweep_deg": 35.7084, "plate_length_scale": 0.9764, "plate_width_scale": 1.0011, "deck_gap": 0.0232, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0001} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.32, "cold_headwind": 4.01, "crosswind": 3.85, "gusty_light": 3.7, "hot_thin": 3.54, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.286 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2981, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5858, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.4578, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.2882, "plate_length_scale": 0.9697, "plate_width_scale": 0.9972, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1202} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.31, "cold_headwind": 4.01, "crosswind": 3.87, "gusty_light": 3.71, "hot_thin": 3.53, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.289 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3042, "arm_width_scale": 0.7603, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 32.1774, "rear_sweep_deg": 39.3405, "plate_length_scale": 0.9714, "plate_width_scale": 1.0101, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0005} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.31, "cold_headwind": 4.02, "crosswind": 3.87, "gusty_light": 3.71, "hot_thin": 3.53, "storm": 4.83}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g13 `e28f0289` fitness 6.840 Wh/km-agg — was: Abandon the elite family's tight-deck-gap/no-wedge/floor-thickness trait: push deck_gap near its max for maximum rotor/deck clearance, tilt the battery near its max to cut frontal area, and raise plate_thickness_scale well above the floor for a stiffer core, while holding sweep at stock and arms moderate so none of these three untested dimensions gets confounded with a sweep or mass penalty.
- g14 `03a2ffd5` fitness 6.991 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family has converged on a minimum-mass/minimum-drag recipe (thin floor-thickness arms, near-stock sweep, tight deck gap, carbon) that has exhausted every free-mass knob without denting the storm/crosswind penalty, so this pivot abandons near-stock sweep for a genuinely wide stance (front 40, rear 48 deg) with plate scales grown per the sweep-deviation rule to test whether real aerodynami
- g14 `19c8d082` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pet_cf)) — was: Every elite uses material near 0.0 (pure carbon) because prior non-carbon attempts bundled the material switch with a heavy 'storm bruiser' stance that ate the mass budget, so this pivot isolates the material axis alone -- keep the proven elite-shaped long-arm, low-drag, near-stock-sweep geometry intact but swap to PET-CF (0.40) with plate_thickness_scale raised to 0.90 to meet the printed-materia
- g14 `e8b47537` fitness 6.371 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test the untested battery_wedge_deg=14 frontal-area-reduction dimension, fixing the rotor-tip-clearance failure by raising arm_length_scale from the failed 0.9 to a safe 1.2 while leaving sweep, plate scales and material untouched so only the battery tilt is isolated.
- g15 `470c4fea` fitness 6.574 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite also sits at the plate_thickness_scale floor (0.7-0.76) with a tight deck_gap (0.025-0.026) -- deck/standoff stiffness and rotor-to-deck clearance under gust loading have never been tested independently of arm geometry or a mass-adding stance change, so this pivot keeps the elite's low-drag floor-thin arms and stock sweep untouched but pushes plate_thickness_scale near its max and deck
- g15 `4e66ffd7` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Re-isolate the untested tough ASA material (0.75) against the all-carbon elite family, keeping the same generous arm geometry as the failed attempt but raising deck_gap to 0.042 and trimming plate_thickness_scale to 0.85 (still above the printed-material 0.8 floor) to clear the deck/battery stack.
- g15 `a55c3afa` fitness 7.773 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-stiffness pivot away from the elite family's thin/minimum-mass arms (wide arm_width=1.4, no waist narrowing, thick arm_thickness=0.007, carbon) that failed only on rotor/deck clearance -- fixed by raising deck_gap from the failed 0.027 to 0.04, well clear of the stack.
- g16 `a072202c` fitness 6.630 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite sits at the arm_waist_scale floor (0.55, maximum mid-shaft narrowing) paired with minimum width -- this pivot decouples the two, isolating waist taper as its own stiffness lever by raising arm_waist_scale to 1.10 (near-constant arm width along the shaft, no pinch point to flex/resonate under storm gusts) while keeping arm_width_scale, arm_thickness, sweep and plate geometry at the elit
- g16 `cadb6dac` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Prior material pivots away from carbon always failed validity (arm tip deflection / plate-web-too-thin) because they kept the elite's thin-waist thin-arm shape unchanged for a lower-modulus polymer -- this pivot properly compensates by isolating PETG (damped, tough) with arm_thickness raised to 0.0065 and arm_waist_scale relaxed to 0.80 to prevent tip deflection, and plate_thickness_scale set to 1
- g16 `f2511166` fitness 6.641 Wh/km-agg — was: Replaces the failed 14-deg rear-sweep pivot: trims the deviation to 10 deg past stock and grows plate_length/width_scale to 1.22/1.25 (above the prior 1.15/1.2 that let the tongue bolts miss the main plate) while keeping the same lean thin-arm carbon build to isolate wide-stance stiffness from mass penalties.
- g17 `232aae29` fitness 6.504 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior storm-stiffness pivot added mass to the arms and made the aggregate worse, so instead stiffen the deck/standoff core (deck_gap raised to 0.040, plate_thickness_scale raised to 1.25) while keeping the proven thin-arm, stock-sweep, low-drag geometry completely unchanged, isolating core stiffness from arm stiffness for the first time.
- g17 `41f6a585` fitness 6.769 Wh/km-agg — was: Same PLA+ stiff-arm/thick-plate pivot as the failed design, but with deck_gap raised from 0.028 to 0.04 since the thicker plate_thickness_scale=1.0 stack consumes more of the standoff and starved rotor-to-deck clearance at the smaller gap.
- g17 `83f19dec` fitness 6.475 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate pure aerodynamic stance from the mass penalty that sank every prior wide-sweep attempt: push both sweeps well past stock (front +12, rear +14) with plate scales grown generously (1.28/1.24) to keep the tongue bolts safely seated, while leaving the elite's thin floor-mass carbon arms completely untouched.
- g18 `7adc86c1` fitness 6.646 Wh/km-agg — was: Stake out a genuinely wide-stance aero region by combining far-from-stock sweeps (front 43, rear 52, plate scales grown per the 0.1-per-5-deg rule) with an untested 8-deg battery wedge, isolating a combined frontal/side-profile reduction strategy for crosswind and cold_headwind that no prior single-axis sweep or wedge pivot tested together.
- g18 `d8d770d5` INVALID (arm tip deflection (asa)) — was: Switch away from carbon to a tough, damped ASA build (material 0.9) with thickness, width and waist properly compensated (arm_thickness 0.006, waist relaxed to 0.85 to remove a pinch-point resonance node, plate_thickness_scale 1.0) to test whether damage tolerance under gust loading can genuinely cut the storm penalty that dominates the fitness function, unlike prior uncompensated material pivots 
- g19 `0e35d1c3` fitness 6.588 Wh/km-agg — was: Same combined wide-stance-plus-battery-wedge frontal-area pivot as the failed design, but grow plate_length/width_scale to 1.28/1.24 -- the pairing already proven to keep the tongue bolts seated at this exact +12.6/+14 deg sweep deviation -- instead of the too-thin 1.22/1.18 that let them miss the main plate.
- g19 `624da8bb` INVALID (arm resonance with rotor 1P) — was: The elite family shares a floor-thickness, minimum-mass build where every attempt to add stiffness got starved by mass penalty — so isolate the opposite extreme (near-max arm width/waist/thickness plus near-max plate thickness, sweep held at stock and deck_gap generously raised for stack clearance) to see whether real structural stiffness ever pays off for storm once mass is not being traded piece
- g20 `21664820` fitness 8.018 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family's floor-thickness/min-width/min-waist arms have exhausted every mass-reduction lever without denting the storm penalty; combine the two previously-isolated promising stiffness levers -- waist decoupling (arm_waist_scale=1.2, no pinch point, scored 6.630 alone) and deck/core stiffening (plate_thickness_scale=1.35, deck_gap=0.040, scored 6.504 alone) -- into one genuinely stiff-arm,
- g20 `cc53cd9d` fitness 6.514 Wh/km-agg — was: Every material pivot away from carbon has failed validity because it kept the elite's thin-shell dimensions unchanged; properly compensate PA12-CF's higher density and lower stiffness this time (arm_thickness raised to 0.006 to fix the repeated pa12_cf tip-deflection failure, plate_thickness_scale raised to 1.0, well above the 0.8 printed-material floor) to cleanly test whether its damage toleranc
- g20 `f45e862c` fitness 6.619 Wh/km-agg — was: Battery wedge is the only frontal-area lever that ever came close to the elite in isolation (wedge=14 scored 6.371) while every symmetric sweep-widening attempt lost to its own plate-mass penalty, so push wedge to its true max (15) and pair it with an asymmetric tight-nose/wide-tail sweep (front at the 30 deg floor, rear opened to 46) to shift the aerodynamic center for storm/crosswind stability i

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 13, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 12, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 12, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 7, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 17, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 7, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 11 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 PIVOTAL designs that abandon that trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space. Do NOT refine the elites — a pivot that lands near them is a wasted round. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 5e6a89c8 — Battery wedge and deck_gap have each been isolated before (both landing worse than elite alone) but never combined; this pivot pushes both to near their maxima together -- generous deck_gap (0.043) giving the max battery tilt (15 deg) safe rotor/battery clearance -- with moderate (not elite-extreme) arm_length_scale (1.15) and stock sweep, testing whether the clearance-vs-wedge interaction unlocksflew at 6.504 Wh/km
candidate 8b5de20a — Same genuine wide/thick/no-pinch arm stiffness test as the failed design, but the short arm_length_scale=0.85 was shrinking motor separation enough to overlap rotor disks, so arm_length_scale is raised to 1.1 for safe tip clearance, and sweep is nudged off the tongue-collision-prone minimum (front 38/rear 44, with plate scales grown 0.1 to match) instead of sitting right near the 33/38 near-minimuflew at 8.053 Wh/km
candidate 555e0858 — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — The elite family's shared trait is long arms (1.27-1.31) near stock sweep; this pivot goes to the opposite extreme -- short arm_length_scale (0.80) to cut arm mass -- compensating the resulting rotor-tip-clearance risk with far-wider-than-stock sweep (47/58 deg) and plate scales grown per the 0.1-per-5-deg rule, testing a genuinely compact-frame region no elite has explored.
candidate 39f2e737 — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Every prior max-stiffness attempt (wide width/waist/thickness) confounded the stiffness gain with the elite's long-arm mass and triggered arm-resonance-with-rotor-1P failures, so this pivot pairs near-max arm width/waist/thickness with a much SHORTER arm (0.85) instead -- shifting the natural frequency away from 1P while keeping total mass in check -- isolating real structural stiffness for the fi
candidate 76523eca — rejected pre-flight (rotor too close to deck/battery) — Same short-arm, wide-sweep frontal/side-profile pivot as the failed design, but trimmed to the proven-safe 43/52 deg sweep pairing (validated at plate 1.28/1.24 in a prior generation) and the waist relaxed from the max-pinch 0.55 to 0.65 so the root tongue geometry isn't over-narrowed at the more extreme rotation.

54a73703249e

6.257 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	3.99
crosswind	3.85
gusty_light	3.69
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.80

1704aea48de9

6.274 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	4.00
crosswind	3.86
gusty_light	3.70
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.82

6db77ae0e3e7

6.319 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.32
cold_headwind	4.04
crosswind	3.89
gusty_light	3.72
hot_thin	3.54
storm	4.85

a3e915aff1c6

6.341 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.33
cold_headwind	4.07
crosswind	3.90
gusty_light	3.73
hot_thin	3.55
storm	4.87

321458e4fe8e

6.384 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.35
cold_headwind	4.08
crosswind	3.93
gusty_light	3.76
hot_thin	3.57
storm	4.90

9e44ec74f3f7

6.422 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.36
cold_headwind	4.13
crosswind	3.95
gusty_light	3.78
hot_thin	3.59
storm	4.93

5e6a89c82c1d

6.504 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.42
cold_headwind	4.18
crosswind	4.00
gusty_light	3.83
hot_thin	3.64
storm	4.99

7bba02524c77

6.621 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.48
cold_headwind	4.26
crosswind	4.07
gusty_light	3.89
hot_thin	3.71
storm	5.08

0a47694a74b8

6.704 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.51
cold_headwind	4.33
crosswind	4.12
gusty_light	3.94
hot_thin	3.74
storm	5.15

8b5de20a6d4e

8.053 wh/km agg

calm_warm	4.19
cold_headwind	5.22
crosswind	4.93
gusty_light	4.70
hot_thin	4.47
storm	6.20

fe3e0aede10d

8.090 wh/km agg

calm_warm	4.22
cold_headwind	5.22
crosswind	4.96
gusty_light	4.73
hot_thin	4.51
storm	6.23

b117b3da4364

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

e6aff9563f8c

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

24af3796f70c

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

827158d42c32

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

2c3798403caa

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)

generation 20

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 3 design(s) injected

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	4
pivot crosses (far parent)	7

mutation σ 0.098 of gene range
pivot σ 0.157 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 20 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.75..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.55..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.004..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.7..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257, g19 6.257 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 10 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.257 Wh/km-agg, frame 91 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2731, "arm_width_scale": 0.7651, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.4559, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.1765, "plate_length_scale": 0.9681, "plate_width_scale": 0.9972, "deck_gap": 0.0261, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1254} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.3, "cold_headwind": 3.99, "crosswind": 3.85, "gusty_light": 3.69, "hot_thin": 3.52, "storm": 4.8}
fitness 6.274 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3072, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.8, "rear_sweep_deg": 39.3318, "plate_length_scale": 0.97, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.3, "cold_headwind": 4.0, "crosswind": 3.86, "gusty_light": 3.7, "hot_thin": 3.52, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.284 Wh/km-agg, frame 91 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2628, "arm_width_scale": 0.7708, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5502, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 48.7313, "rear_sweep_deg": 35.7084, "plate_length_scale": 0.9764, "plate_width_scale": 1.0011, "deck_gap": 0.0232, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0001} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.32, "cold_headwind": 4.01, "crosswind": 3.85, "gusty_light": 3.7, "hot_thin": 3.54, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.286 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2981, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5858, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.4578, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.2882, "plate_length_scale": 0.9697, "plate_width_scale": 0.9972, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1202} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.31, "cold_headwind": 4.01, "crosswind": 3.87, "gusty_light": 3.71, "hot_thin": 3.53, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.291 Wh/km-agg, frame 93 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.8, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.3, "plate_length_scale": 0.97, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.75, "material": 0.05} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.31, "cold_headwind": 4.02, "crosswind": 3.87, "gusty_light": 3.71, "hot_thin": 3.53, "storm": 4.83}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g12 `ddf19b53` fitness 6.311 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test extreme arm_length_scale (1.35 max, lower disk loading) at stock sweep, this time with plate_length/width_scale raised to 1.00/1.03 (above the elite's barely-passing 0.97/1.00) to keep the tongue-bolt web safely above the 1.90mm stock/80% floor.
- g13 `197c2380` fitness 7.025 Wh/km-agg — was: Compact stiff-arm storm specialist replacing the failed short-arm attempt: arm_length_scale raised from the failed 0.78 to 1.2 (within the tip-clearance-safe range the elites themselves use) while keeping the fat, thick, low-narrowing arms and thicker plates that trade mass for storm stiffness the elite family has abandoned.
- g13 `3844ac93` fitness 6.757 Wh/km-agg — was: Wide-stance crosswind/storm pivot replacing the failed extreme-sweep attempt: sweep deltas trimmed from 11.6/14 deg to a safer 6.6/8 deg past stock and plate_length/width_scale pushed to 1.10/1.15 (well beyond the ~0.1-per-5-deg rule) to keep the tongue bolts seated on the main plate.
- g13 `e28f0289` fitness 6.840 Wh/km-agg — was: Abandon the elite family's tight-deck-gap/no-wedge/floor-thickness trait: push deck_gap near its max for maximum rotor/deck clearance, tilt the battery near its max to cut frontal area, and raise plate_thickness_scale well above the floor for a stiffer core, while holding sweep at stock and arms moderate so none of these three untested dimensions gets confounded with a sweep or mass penalty.
- g14 `03a2ffd5` fitness 6.991 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family has converged on a minimum-mass/minimum-drag recipe (thin floor-thickness arms, near-stock sweep, tight deck gap, carbon) that has exhausted every free-mass knob without denting the storm/crosswind penalty, so this pivot abandons near-stock sweep for a genuinely wide stance (front 40, rear 48 deg) with plate scales grown per the sweep-deviation rule to test whether real aerodynami
- g14 `19c8d082` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pet_cf)) — was: Every elite uses material near 0.0 (pure carbon) because prior non-carbon attempts bundled the material switch with a heavy 'storm bruiser' stance that ate the mass budget, so this pivot isolates the material axis alone -- keep the proven elite-shaped long-arm, low-drag, near-stock-sweep geometry intact but swap to PET-CF (0.40) with plate_thickness_scale raised to 0.90 to meet the printed-materia
- g14 `e8b47537` fitness 6.371 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test the untested battery_wedge_deg=14 frontal-area-reduction dimension, fixing the rotor-tip-clearance failure by raising arm_length_scale from the failed 0.9 to a safe 1.2 while leaving sweep, plate scales and material untouched so only the battery tilt is isolated.
- g15 `470c4fea` fitness 6.574 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite also sits at the plate_thickness_scale floor (0.7-0.76) with a tight deck_gap (0.025-0.026) -- deck/standoff stiffness and rotor-to-deck clearance under gust loading have never been tested independently of arm geometry or a mass-adding stance change, so this pivot keeps the elite's low-drag floor-thin arms and stock sweep untouched but pushes plate_thickness_scale near its max and deck
- g15 `4e66ffd7` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Re-isolate the untested tough ASA material (0.75) against the all-carbon elite family, keeping the same generous arm geometry as the failed attempt but raising deck_gap to 0.042 and trimming plate_thickness_scale to 0.85 (still above the printed-material 0.8 floor) to clear the deck/battery stack.
- g15 `a55c3afa` fitness 7.773 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-stiffness pivot away from the elite family's thin/minimum-mass arms (wide arm_width=1.4, no waist narrowing, thick arm_thickness=0.007, carbon) that failed only on rotor/deck clearance -- fixed by raising deck_gap from the failed 0.027 to 0.04, well clear of the stack.
- g16 `a072202c` fitness 6.630 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite sits at the arm_waist_scale floor (0.55, maximum mid-shaft narrowing) paired with minimum width -- this pivot decouples the two, isolating waist taper as its own stiffness lever by raising arm_waist_scale to 1.10 (near-constant arm width along the shaft, no pinch point to flex/resonate under storm gusts) while keeping arm_width_scale, arm_thickness, sweep and plate geometry at the elit
- g16 `cadb6dac` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Prior material pivots away from carbon always failed validity (arm tip deflection / plate-web-too-thin) because they kept the elite's thin-waist thin-arm shape unchanged for a lower-modulus polymer -- this pivot properly compensates by isolating PETG (damped, tough) with arm_thickness raised to 0.0065 and arm_waist_scale relaxed to 0.80 to prevent tip deflection, and plate_thickness_scale set to 1
- g16 `f2511166` fitness 6.641 Wh/km-agg — was: Replaces the failed 14-deg rear-sweep pivot: trims the deviation to 10 deg past stock and grows plate_length/width_scale to 1.22/1.25 (above the prior 1.15/1.2 that let the tongue bolts miss the main plate) while keeping the same lean thin-arm carbon build to isolate wide-stance stiffness from mass penalties.
- g17 `232aae29` fitness 6.504 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior storm-stiffness pivot added mass to the arms and made the aggregate worse, so instead stiffen the deck/standoff core (deck_gap raised to 0.040, plate_thickness_scale raised to 1.25) while keeping the proven thin-arm, stock-sweep, low-drag geometry completely unchanged, isolating core stiffness from arm stiffness for the first time.
- g17 `41f6a585` fitness 6.769 Wh/km-agg — was: Same PLA+ stiff-arm/thick-plate pivot as the failed design, but with deck_gap raised from 0.028 to 0.04 since the thicker plate_thickness_scale=1.0 stack consumes more of the standoff and starved rotor-to-deck clearance at the smaller gap.
- g17 `83f19dec` fitness 6.475 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate pure aerodynamic stance from the mass penalty that sank every prior wide-sweep attempt: push both sweeps well past stock (front +12, rear +14) with plate scales grown generously (1.28/1.24) to keep the tongue bolts safely seated, while leaving the elite's thin floor-mass carbon arms completely untouched.
- g18 `7adc86c1` fitness 6.646 Wh/km-agg — was: Stake out a genuinely wide-stance aero region by combining far-from-stock sweeps (front 43, rear 52, plate scales grown per the 0.1-per-5-deg rule) with an untested 8-deg battery wedge, isolating a combined frontal/side-profile reduction strategy for crosswind and cold_headwind that no prior single-axis sweep or wedge pivot tested together.
- g18 `d8d770d5` INVALID (arm tip deflection (asa)) — was: Switch away from carbon to a tough, damped ASA build (material 0.9) with thickness, width and waist properly compensated (arm_thickness 0.006, waist relaxed to 0.85 to remove a pinch-point resonance node, plate_thickness_scale 1.0) to test whether damage tolerance under gust loading can genuinely cut the storm penalty that dominates the fitness function, unlike prior uncompensated material pivots 
- g19 `0e35d1c3` fitness 6.588 Wh/km-agg — was: Same combined wide-stance-plus-battery-wedge frontal-area pivot as the failed design, but grow plate_length/width_scale to 1.28/1.24 -- the pairing already proven to keep the tongue bolts seated at this exact +12.6/+14 deg sweep deviation -- instead of the too-thin 1.22/1.18 that let them miss the main plate.
- g19 `624da8bb` INVALID (arm resonance with rotor 1P) — was: The elite family shares a floor-thickness, minimum-mass build where every attempt to add stiffness got starved by mass penalty — so isolate the opposite extreme (near-max arm width/waist/thickness plus near-max plate thickness, sweep held at stock and deck_gap generously raised for stack clearance) to see whether real structural stiffness ever pays off for storm once mass is not being traded piece

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 13, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 12, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 11, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 7, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 15, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 6, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 10 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 PIVOTAL designs that abandon that trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space. Do NOT refine the elites — a pivot that lands near them is a wasted round. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 21664820 — The elite family's floor-thickness/min-width/min-waist arms have exhausted every mass-reduction lever without denting the storm penalty; combine the two previously-isolated promising stiffness levers -- waist decoupling (arm_waist_scale=1.2, no pinch point, scored 6.630 alone) and deck/core stiffening (plate_thickness_scale=1.35, deck_gap=0.040, scored 6.504 alone) -- into one genuinely stiff-arm,flew at 8.018 Wh/km
candidate f45e862c — Battery wedge is the only frontal-area lever that ever came close to the elite in isolation (wedge=14 scored 6.371) while every symmetric sweep-widening attempt lost to its own plate-mass penalty, so push wedge to its true max (15) and pair it with an asymmetric tight-nose/wide-tail sweep (front at the 30 deg floor, rear opened to 46) to shift the aerodynamic center for storm/crosswind stability iflew at 6.619 Wh/km
candidate cc53cd9d — Every material pivot away from carbon has failed validity because it kept the elite's thin-shell dimensions unchanged; properly compensate PA12-CF's higher density and lower stiffness this time (arm_thickness raised to 0.006 to fix the repeated pa12_cf tip-deflection failure, plate_thickness_scale raised to 1.0, well above the 0.8 printed-material floor) to cleanly test whether its damage tolerancflew at 6.514 Wh/km

54a73703249e

6.257 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	3.99
crosswind	3.85
gusty_light	3.69
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.80

1704aea48de9

6.274 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	4.00
crosswind	3.86
gusty_light	3.70
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.82

3280daa84a2f

6.289 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.31
cold_headwind	4.02
crosswind	3.87
gusty_light	3.71
hot_thin	3.53
storm	4.83

99c5d37c02df

6.313 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.32
cold_headwind	4.04
crosswind	3.88
gusty_light	3.72
hot_thin	3.54
storm	4.85

32354be55061

6.323 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.32
cold_headwind	4.05
crosswind	3.89
gusty_light	3.72
hot_thin	3.54
storm	4.85

8d3baceec6ce

6.339 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.33
cold_headwind	4.07
crosswind	3.90
gusty_light	3.73
hot_thin	3.55
storm	4.87

cc53cd9d248e

6.514 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.40
cold_headwind	4.20
crosswind	4.02
gusty_light	3.83
hot_thin	3.63
storm	5.00

9fc7fb69eb8b

6.589 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.46
cold_headwind	4.24
crosswind	4.05
gusty_light	3.87
hot_thin	3.69
storm	5.06

f45e862cd6b3

6.619 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.48
cold_headwind	4.26
crosswind	4.07
gusty_light	3.89
hot_thin	3.70
storm	5.08

04ff0826e748

6.678 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.50
cold_headwind	4.31
crosswind	4.10
gusty_light	3.92
hot_thin	3.73
storm	5.13

216648201249

8.018 wh/km agg

calm_warm	4.18
cold_headwind	5.18
crosswind	4.91
gusty_light	4.69
hot_thin	4.46
storm	6.17

dc624f621edb

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

37cf390d4601

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)

c90d90d7c88c

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

c9fa6339c0ff

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)

2406afc3979d

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

generation 19

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 2 design(s) injected, 3 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	2
crossovers (tournament parents)	3
pivot crosses (far parent)	7
random immigrants	2

mutation σ 0.101 of gene range
pivot σ 0.161 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 19 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.75..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.55..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.004..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.7..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257, g18 6.257 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 9 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.257 Wh/km-agg, frame 91 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2731, "arm_width_scale": 0.7651, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.4559, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.1765, "plate_length_scale": 0.9681, "plate_width_scale": 0.9972, "deck_gap": 0.0261, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1254} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.3, "cold_headwind": 3.99, "crosswind": 3.85, "gusty_light": 3.69, "hot_thin": 3.52, "storm": 4.8}
fitness 6.274 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3072, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.8, "rear_sweep_deg": 39.3318, "plate_length_scale": 0.97, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.3, "cold_headwind": 4.0, "crosswind": 3.86, "gusty_light": 3.7, "hot_thin": 3.52, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.284 Wh/km-agg, frame 91 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2628, "arm_width_scale": 0.7708, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5502, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 48.7313, "rear_sweep_deg": 35.7084, "plate_length_scale": 0.9764, "plate_width_scale": 1.0011, "deck_gap": 0.0232, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0001} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.32, "cold_headwind": 4.01, "crosswind": 3.85, "gusty_light": 3.7, "hot_thin": 3.54, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.286 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2981, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5858, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.4578, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.2882, "plate_length_scale": 0.9697, "plate_width_scale": 0.9972, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1202} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.31, "cold_headwind": 4.01, "crosswind": 3.87, "gusty_light": 3.71, "hot_thin": 3.53, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.291 Wh/km-agg, frame 93 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.8, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.3, "plate_length_scale": 0.97, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.75, "material": 0.05} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.31, "cold_headwind": 4.02, "crosswind": 3.87, "gusty_light": 3.71, "hot_thin": 3.53, "storm": 4.83}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g12 `17da73c8` fitness 6.333 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test the raised deck_gap (0.036, well past the 0.023 FC-stack minimum) for extra rotor/deck clearance margin, again pairing stock sweep with plate_length/width_scale at 1.00/1.03 to avoid the web-crush failure that killed the prior attempt at 0.96/0.96.
- g12 `af149969` fitness 6.355 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate the untested battery_wedge_deg dimension (all elites sit at 0.0) by tilting the battery 12 deg to cut frontal area for cold_headwind/crosswind, otherwise cloning the elite recipe's proven arm/plate/material values exactly.
- g12 `ddf19b53` fitness 6.311 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test extreme arm_length_scale (1.35 max, lower disk loading) at stock sweep, this time with plate_length/width_scale raised to 1.00/1.03 (above the elite's barely-passing 0.97/1.00) to keep the tongue-bolt web safely above the 1.90mm stock/80% floor.
- g13 `197c2380` fitness 7.025 Wh/km-agg — was: Compact stiff-arm storm specialist replacing the failed short-arm attempt: arm_length_scale raised from the failed 0.78 to 1.2 (within the tip-clearance-safe range the elites themselves use) while keeping the fat, thick, low-narrowing arms and thicker plates that trade mass for storm stiffness the elite family has abandoned.
- g13 `3844ac93` fitness 6.757 Wh/km-agg — was: Wide-stance crosswind/storm pivot replacing the failed extreme-sweep attempt: sweep deltas trimmed from 11.6/14 deg to a safer 6.6/8 deg past stock and plate_length/width_scale pushed to 1.10/1.15 (well beyond the ~0.1-per-5-deg rule) to keep the tongue bolts seated on the main plate.
- g13 `e28f0289` fitness 6.840 Wh/km-agg — was: Abandon the elite family's tight-deck-gap/no-wedge/floor-thickness trait: push deck_gap near its max for maximum rotor/deck clearance, tilt the battery near its max to cut frontal area, and raise plate_thickness_scale well above the floor for a stiffer core, while holding sweep at stock and arms moderate so none of these three untested dimensions gets confounded with a sweep or mass penalty.
- g14 `03a2ffd5` fitness 6.991 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family has converged on a minimum-mass/minimum-drag recipe (thin floor-thickness arms, near-stock sweep, tight deck gap, carbon) that has exhausted every free-mass knob without denting the storm/crosswind penalty, so this pivot abandons near-stock sweep for a genuinely wide stance (front 40, rear 48 deg) with plate scales grown per the sweep-deviation rule to test whether real aerodynami
- g14 `19c8d082` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pet_cf)) — was: Every elite uses material near 0.0 (pure carbon) because prior non-carbon attempts bundled the material switch with a heavy 'storm bruiser' stance that ate the mass budget, so this pivot isolates the material axis alone -- keep the proven elite-shaped long-arm, low-drag, near-stock-sweep geometry intact but swap to PET-CF (0.40) with plate_thickness_scale raised to 0.90 to meet the printed-materia
- g14 `e8b47537` fitness 6.371 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test the untested battery_wedge_deg=14 frontal-area-reduction dimension, fixing the rotor-tip-clearance failure by raising arm_length_scale from the failed 0.9 to a safe 1.2 while leaving sweep, plate scales and material untouched so only the battery tilt is isolated.
- g15 `470c4fea` fitness 6.574 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite also sits at the plate_thickness_scale floor (0.7-0.76) with a tight deck_gap (0.025-0.026) -- deck/standoff stiffness and rotor-to-deck clearance under gust loading have never been tested independently of arm geometry or a mass-adding stance change, so this pivot keeps the elite's low-drag floor-thin arms and stock sweep untouched but pushes plate_thickness_scale near its max and deck
- g15 `4e66ffd7` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Re-isolate the untested tough ASA material (0.75) against the all-carbon elite family, keeping the same generous arm geometry as the failed attempt but raising deck_gap to 0.042 and trimming plate_thickness_scale to 0.85 (still above the printed-material 0.8 floor) to clear the deck/battery stack.
- g15 `a55c3afa` fitness 7.773 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-stiffness pivot away from the elite family's thin/minimum-mass arms (wide arm_width=1.4, no waist narrowing, thick arm_thickness=0.007, carbon) that failed only on rotor/deck clearance -- fixed by raising deck_gap from the failed 0.027 to 0.04, well clear of the stack.
- g16 `a072202c` fitness 6.630 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite sits at the arm_waist_scale floor (0.55, maximum mid-shaft narrowing) paired with minimum width -- this pivot decouples the two, isolating waist taper as its own stiffness lever by raising arm_waist_scale to 1.10 (near-constant arm width along the shaft, no pinch point to flex/resonate under storm gusts) while keeping arm_width_scale, arm_thickness, sweep and plate geometry at the elit
- g16 `cadb6dac` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Prior material pivots away from carbon always failed validity (arm tip deflection / plate-web-too-thin) because they kept the elite's thin-waist thin-arm shape unchanged for a lower-modulus polymer -- this pivot properly compensates by isolating PETG (damped, tough) with arm_thickness raised to 0.0065 and arm_waist_scale relaxed to 0.80 to prevent tip deflection, and plate_thickness_scale set to 1
- g16 `f2511166` fitness 6.641 Wh/km-agg — was: Replaces the failed 14-deg rear-sweep pivot: trims the deviation to 10 deg past stock and grows plate_length/width_scale to 1.22/1.25 (above the prior 1.15/1.2 that let the tongue bolts miss the main plate) while keeping the same lean thin-arm carbon build to isolate wide-stance stiffness from mass penalties.
- g17 `232aae29` fitness 6.504 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior storm-stiffness pivot added mass to the arms and made the aggregate worse, so instead stiffen the deck/standoff core (deck_gap raised to 0.040, plate_thickness_scale raised to 1.25) while keeping the proven thin-arm, stock-sweep, low-drag geometry completely unchanged, isolating core stiffness from arm stiffness for the first time.
- g17 `41f6a585` fitness 6.769 Wh/km-agg — was: Same PLA+ stiff-arm/thick-plate pivot as the failed design, but with deck_gap raised from 0.028 to 0.04 since the thicker plate_thickness_scale=1.0 stack consumes more of the standoff and starved rotor-to-deck clearance at the smaller gap.
- g17 `83f19dec` fitness 6.475 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate pure aerodynamic stance from the mass penalty that sank every prior wide-sweep attempt: push both sweeps well past stock (front +12, rear +14) with plate scales grown generously (1.28/1.24) to keep the tongue bolts safely seated, while leaving the elite's thin floor-mass carbon arms completely untouched.
- g18 `7adc86c1` fitness 6.646 Wh/km-agg — was: Stake out a genuinely wide-stance aero region by combining far-from-stock sweeps (front 43, rear 52, plate scales grown per the 0.1-per-5-deg rule) with an untested 8-deg battery wedge, isolating a combined frontal/side-profile reduction strategy for crosswind and cold_headwind that no prior single-axis sweep or wedge pivot tested together.
- g18 `d8d770d5` INVALID (arm tip deflection (asa)) — was: Switch away from carbon to a tough, damped ASA build (material 0.9) with thickness, width and waist properly compensated (arm_thickness 0.006, waist relaxed to 0.85 to remove a pinch-point resonance node, plate_thickness_scale 1.0) to test whether damage tolerance under gust loading can genuinely cut the storm penalty that dominates the fitness function, unlike prior uncompensated material pivots 

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 13, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 12, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 11, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 7, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 14, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 6, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 9 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 PIVOTAL designs that abandon that trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space. Do NOT refine the elites — a pivot that lands near them is a wasted round. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 624da8bb — The elite family shares a floor-thickness, minimum-mass build where every attempt to add stiffness got starved by mass penalty — so isolate the opposite extreme (near-max arm width/waist/thickness plus near-max plate thickness, sweep held at stock and deck_gap generously raised for stack clearance) to see whether real structural stiffness ever pays off for storm once mass is not being traded pieceinvalid — arm resonance with rotor 1P
candidate 0e35d1c3 — Same combined wide-stance-plus-battery-wedge frontal-area pivot as the failed design, but grow plate_length/width_scale to 1.28/1.24 -- the pairing already proven to keep the tongue bolts seated at this exact +12.6/+14 deg sweep deviation -- instead of the too-thin 1.22/1.18 that let them miss the main plate.flew at 6.588 Wh/km
candidate 696632b2 — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — Every elite sits at near-stock sweep because wide-sweep attempts keep getting offset by the plate-scale mass they require, so push sweep far past stock (front +10.6, rear +14 deg, matching the ratio of the one prior VALID wide-sweep design) combined with a near-max battery wedge and the elite's leanest arm dimensions to isolate pure frontal/side-profile reduction from any stiffness-driven mass con
candidate 63167a16 — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Every elite also shares a near-maximum arm_length_scale (1.26-1.31) that has never been abandoned, so test a genuinely short-wheelbase/high-disk-loading stance (~30% shorter arms than any elite) with only moderate width/waist since a shorter beam needs less material to resist bending, staying at stock sweep and floor plate thickness to isolate the wheelbase axis from every other trait.
candidate 35e24bd2 — rejected pre-flight (rotor too close to deck/battery) — Same contrarian pivot testing moderate arm width/waist (0.95/0.70) against the elite family's minimum-width-and-waist recipe, but raise arm_length_scale from the failed 0.92 to 1.08 to restore rotor-tip clearance while staying well below the elites' near-max 1.27-1.31 arm length.

54a73703249e

6.257 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	3.99
crosswind	3.85
gusty_light	3.69
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.80

1704aea48de9

6.274 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	4.00
crosswind	3.86
gusty_light	3.70
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.82

96f545f25cbe

6.298 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.31
cold_headwind	4.03
crosswind	3.87
gusty_light	3.71
hot_thin	3.53
storm	4.84

d3b6554ace86

6.431 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.38
cold_headwind	4.12
crosswind	3.96
gusty_light	3.79
hot_thin	3.60
storm	4.94

bd388d17a4cf

6.496 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.41
cold_headwind	4.17
crosswind	4.00
gusty_light	3.82
hot_thin	3.63
storm	4.99

0e35d1c372f5

6.588 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.45
cold_headwind	4.24
crosswind	4.05
gusty_light	3.87
hot_thin	3.68
storm	5.06

8bd7e8d0aa04

6.618 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.47
cold_headwind	4.24
crosswind	4.07
gusty_light	3.89
hot_thin	3.70
storm	5.08

28ee1aea28cb

6.874 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.60
cold_headwind	4.44
crosswind	4.22
gusty_light	4.04
hot_thin	3.83
storm	5.28

8ca690fa1442

7.577 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.95
cold_headwind	4.95
crosswind	4.64
gusty_light	4.43
hot_thin	4.20
storm	5.82

fd0496c33092

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)

4e91de63adb4

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)

83064d76f9ee

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)

42b3468e3332

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)

19868d12b115

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

45099c22a47c

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pet_cf)

calm_warm	3.64
cold_headwind	4.57
crosswind	4.29
gusty_light	4.09
hot_thin	3.88
storm	5.38

624da8bb96ab

∞ wh/km agg

arm resonance with rotor 1P

calm_warm	4.27
cold_headwind	5.25
crosswind	5.00
gusty_light	4.78
hot_thin	4.56
storm	6.28

generation 18

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 2 design(s) injected, 2 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	2
crossovers (tournament parents)	4
pivot crosses (far parent)	7
random immigrants	1

mutation σ 0.104 of gene range
pivot σ 0.166 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 18 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.75..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.55..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.004..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.7..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257, g17 6.257 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 8 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.257 Wh/km-agg, frame 91 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2731, "arm_width_scale": 0.7651, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.4559, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.1765, "plate_length_scale": 0.9681, "plate_width_scale": 0.9972, "deck_gap": 0.0261, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1254} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.3, "cold_headwind": 3.99, "crosswind": 3.85, "gusty_light": 3.69, "hot_thin": 3.52, "storm": 4.8}
fitness 6.274 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3072, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.8, "rear_sweep_deg": 39.3318, "plate_length_scale": 0.97, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.3, "cold_headwind": 4.0, "crosswind": 3.86, "gusty_light": 3.7, "hot_thin": 3.52, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.284 Wh/km-agg, frame 91 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2628, "arm_width_scale": 0.7708, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5502, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 48.7313, "rear_sweep_deg": 35.7084, "plate_length_scale": 0.9764, "plate_width_scale": 1.0011, "deck_gap": 0.0232, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0001} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.32, "cold_headwind": 4.01, "crosswind": 3.85, "gusty_light": 3.7, "hot_thin": 3.54, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.286 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2981, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5858, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.4578, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.2882, "plate_length_scale": 0.9697, "plate_width_scale": 0.9972, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1202} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.31, "cold_headwind": 4.01, "crosswind": 3.87, "gusty_light": 3.71, "hot_thin": 3.53, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.291 Wh/km-agg, frame 93 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.8, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.3, "plate_length_scale": 0.97, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.75, "material": 0.05} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.31, "cold_headwind": 4.02, "crosswind": 3.87, "gusty_light": 3.71, "hot_thin": 3.53, "storm": 4.83}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g9 `2ab37da5` fitness 6.429 Wh/km-agg — was: Replaces the failed vector by raising deck_gap well past the elite range (0.034 vs 0.028) and restoring a stiffer plate_thickness_scale (1.1 vs the failed 0.9) to push the rotor disk clear of the deck/battery stack while keeping near-stock sweeps and carbon construction.
- g9 `8d9fd4a0` fitness 6.291 Wh/km-agg — was: Push arm_length_scale near its max (lowers disk loading) with thin low-drag arms and deliberately cut plate_thickness_scale to 0.75 (below any elite) to shed mass for hot_thin/crosswind, keeping sweep essentially at stock so plate scales need no compensation.
- g12 `17da73c8` fitness 6.333 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test the raised deck_gap (0.036, well past the 0.023 FC-stack minimum) for extra rotor/deck clearance margin, again pairing stock sweep with plate_length/width_scale at 1.00/1.03 to avoid the web-crush failure that killed the prior attempt at 0.96/0.96.
- g12 `af149969` fitness 6.355 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate the untested battery_wedge_deg dimension (all elites sit at 0.0) by tilting the battery 12 deg to cut frontal area for cold_headwind/crosswind, otherwise cloning the elite recipe's proven arm/plate/material values exactly.
- g12 `ddf19b53` fitness 6.311 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test extreme arm_length_scale (1.35 max, lower disk loading) at stock sweep, this time with plate_length/width_scale raised to 1.00/1.03 (above the elite's barely-passing 0.97/1.00) to keep the tongue-bolt web safely above the 1.90mm stock/80% floor.
- g13 `197c2380` fitness 7.025 Wh/km-agg — was: Compact stiff-arm storm specialist replacing the failed short-arm attempt: arm_length_scale raised from the failed 0.78 to 1.2 (within the tip-clearance-safe range the elites themselves use) while keeping the fat, thick, low-narrowing arms and thicker plates that trade mass for storm stiffness the elite family has abandoned.
- g13 `3844ac93` fitness 6.757 Wh/km-agg — was: Wide-stance crosswind/storm pivot replacing the failed extreme-sweep attempt: sweep deltas trimmed from 11.6/14 deg to a safer 6.6/8 deg past stock and plate_length/width_scale pushed to 1.10/1.15 (well beyond the ~0.1-per-5-deg rule) to keep the tongue bolts seated on the main plate.
- g13 `e28f0289` fitness 6.840 Wh/km-agg — was: Abandon the elite family's tight-deck-gap/no-wedge/floor-thickness trait: push deck_gap near its max for maximum rotor/deck clearance, tilt the battery near its max to cut frontal area, and raise plate_thickness_scale well above the floor for a stiffer core, while holding sweep at stock and arms moderate so none of these three untested dimensions gets confounded with a sweep or mass penalty.
- g14 `03a2ffd5` fitness 6.991 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family has converged on a minimum-mass/minimum-drag recipe (thin floor-thickness arms, near-stock sweep, tight deck gap, carbon) that has exhausted every free-mass knob without denting the storm/crosswind penalty, so this pivot abandons near-stock sweep for a genuinely wide stance (front 40, rear 48 deg) with plate scales grown per the sweep-deviation rule to test whether real aerodynami
- g14 `19c8d082` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pet_cf)) — was: Every elite uses material near 0.0 (pure carbon) because prior non-carbon attempts bundled the material switch with a heavy 'storm bruiser' stance that ate the mass budget, so this pivot isolates the material axis alone -- keep the proven elite-shaped long-arm, low-drag, near-stock-sweep geometry intact but swap to PET-CF (0.40) with plate_thickness_scale raised to 0.90 to meet the printed-materia
- g14 `e8b47537` fitness 6.371 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test the untested battery_wedge_deg=14 frontal-area-reduction dimension, fixing the rotor-tip-clearance failure by raising arm_length_scale from the failed 0.9 to a safe 1.2 while leaving sweep, plate scales and material untouched so only the battery tilt is isolated.
- g15 `470c4fea` fitness 6.574 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite also sits at the plate_thickness_scale floor (0.7-0.76) with a tight deck_gap (0.025-0.026) -- deck/standoff stiffness and rotor-to-deck clearance under gust loading have never been tested independently of arm geometry or a mass-adding stance change, so this pivot keeps the elite's low-drag floor-thin arms and stock sweep untouched but pushes plate_thickness_scale near its max and deck
- g15 `4e66ffd7` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Re-isolate the untested tough ASA material (0.75) against the all-carbon elite family, keeping the same generous arm geometry as the failed attempt but raising deck_gap to 0.042 and trimming plate_thickness_scale to 0.85 (still above the printed-material 0.8 floor) to clear the deck/battery stack.
- g15 `a55c3afa` fitness 7.773 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-stiffness pivot away from the elite family's thin/minimum-mass arms (wide arm_width=1.4, no waist narrowing, thick arm_thickness=0.007, carbon) that failed only on rotor/deck clearance -- fixed by raising deck_gap from the failed 0.027 to 0.04, well clear of the stack.
- g16 `a072202c` fitness 6.630 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite sits at the arm_waist_scale floor (0.55, maximum mid-shaft narrowing) paired with minimum width -- this pivot decouples the two, isolating waist taper as its own stiffness lever by raising arm_waist_scale to 1.10 (near-constant arm width along the shaft, no pinch point to flex/resonate under storm gusts) while keeping arm_width_scale, arm_thickness, sweep and plate geometry at the elit
- g16 `cadb6dac` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Prior material pivots away from carbon always failed validity (arm tip deflection / plate-web-too-thin) because they kept the elite's thin-waist thin-arm shape unchanged for a lower-modulus polymer -- this pivot properly compensates by isolating PETG (damped, tough) with arm_thickness raised to 0.0065 and arm_waist_scale relaxed to 0.80 to prevent tip deflection, and plate_thickness_scale set to 1
- g16 `f2511166` fitness 6.641 Wh/km-agg — was: Replaces the failed 14-deg rear-sweep pivot: trims the deviation to 10 deg past stock and grows plate_length/width_scale to 1.22/1.25 (above the prior 1.15/1.2 that let the tongue bolts miss the main plate) while keeping the same lean thin-arm carbon build to isolate wide-stance stiffness from mass penalties.
- g17 `232aae29` fitness 6.504 Wh/km-agg — was: Every prior storm-stiffness pivot added mass to the arms and made the aggregate worse, so instead stiffen the deck/standoff core (deck_gap raised to 0.040, plate_thickness_scale raised to 1.25) while keeping the proven thin-arm, stock-sweep, low-drag geometry completely unchanged, isolating core stiffness from arm stiffness for the first time.
- g17 `41f6a585` fitness 6.769 Wh/km-agg — was: Same PLA+ stiff-arm/thick-plate pivot as the failed design, but with deck_gap raised from 0.028 to 0.04 since the thicker plate_thickness_scale=1.0 stack consumes more of the standoff and starved rotor-to-deck clearance at the smaller gap.
- g17 `83f19dec` fitness 6.475 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate pure aerodynamic stance from the mass penalty that sank every prior wide-sweep attempt: push both sweeps well past stock (front +12, rear +14) with plate scales grown generously (1.28/1.24) to keep the tongue bolts safely seated, while leaving the elite's thin floor-mass carbon arms completely untouched.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 12, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 12, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 11, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 7, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 10, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 6, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 8 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 PIVOTAL designs that abandon that trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space. Do NOT refine the elites — a pivot that lands near them is a wasted round. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 7adc86c1 — Stake out a genuinely wide-stance aero region by combining far-from-stock sweeps (front 43, rear 52, plate scales grown per the 0.1-per-5-deg rule) with an untested 8-deg battery wedge, isolating a combined frontal/side-profile reduction strategy for crosswind and cold_headwind that no prior single-axis sweep or wedge pivot tested together.flew at 6.646 Wh/km
candidate d8d770d5 — Switch away from carbon to a tough, damped ASA build (material 0.9) with thickness, width and waist properly compensated (arm_thickness 0.006, waist relaxed to 0.85 to remove a pinch-point resonance node, plate_thickness_scale 1.0) to test whether damage tolerance under gust loading can genuinely cut the storm penalty that dominates the fitness function, unlike prior uncompensated material pivots invalid — arm tip deflection (asa)
candidate 008f747c — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Abandon the elite's long-thin-arm minimum-mass trait entirely by shrinking arm_length_scale to the compact end of the range (0.82) with moderately increased width/waist/thickness for tip stiffness at the shorter span, testing whether a tighter, stiffer disk-loading regime beats the long-arm low-drag strategy.
candidate 55f7c203 — rejected pre-flight (rotor too close to deck/battery) — Fixes the rotor-tip-overlap failure by raising arm_length_scale from the failed 0.82 to 1.0 (still well short of the elite's 1.27-1.31) while keeping the same stiffer wide-waist, thicker-shaft storm-specialist geometry untouched, testing a moderate-length stiff arm as a genuine pivot from the elite's thin-minimal-mass family.

54a73703249e

6.257 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	3.99
crosswind	3.85
gusty_light	3.69
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.80

1704aea48de9

6.274 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	4.00
crosswind	3.86
gusty_light	3.70
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.82

52ab8e14cb63

6.310 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.31
cold_headwind	4.04
crosswind	3.88
gusty_light	3.72
hot_thin	3.54
storm	4.84

f6397fd6043c

6.487 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.40
cold_headwind	4.17
crosswind	3.99
gusty_light	3.81
hot_thin	3.63
storm	4.98

a8cec93bcca6

6.546 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	4.19
crosswind	4.02
gusty_light	3.85
hot_thin	3.67
storm	5.02

7adc86c167f8

6.646 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.48
cold_headwind	4.27
crosswind	4.08
gusty_light	3.91
hot_thin	3.71
storm	5.10

5fed623f6b65

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

404108ce71d8

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

da2ee1294058

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

781cc66535e0

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

a66e30ecde2f

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

9c39ed818cc8

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

f66bf5675cbb

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

c47e1f6da0e0

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

82e4f3f643e4

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

d8d770d5f10a

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (asa)

calm_warm	3.40
cold_headwind	4.24
crosswind	4.04
gusty_light	3.84
hot_thin	3.63
storm	5.02

generation 17

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 3 design(s) injected, 1 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	1
mutants (single parent)	2
pivot crosses (far parent)	7
random immigrants	1

mutation σ 0.107 of gene range
pivot σ 0.172 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 17 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.75..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.55..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.004..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.7..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257, g16 6.257 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 7 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.257 Wh/km-agg, frame 91 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2731, "arm_width_scale": 0.7651, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.4559, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.1765, "plate_length_scale": 0.9681, "plate_width_scale": 0.9972, "deck_gap": 0.0261, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1254} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.3, "cold_headwind": 3.99, "crosswind": 3.85, "gusty_light": 3.69, "hot_thin": 3.52, "storm": 4.8}
fitness 6.274 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3072, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.8, "rear_sweep_deg": 39.3318, "plate_length_scale": 0.97, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.3, "cold_headwind": 4.0, "crosswind": 3.86, "gusty_light": 3.7, "hot_thin": 3.52, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.284 Wh/km-agg, frame 91 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2628, "arm_width_scale": 0.7708, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5502, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 48.7313, "rear_sweep_deg": 35.7084, "plate_length_scale": 0.9764, "plate_width_scale": 1.0011, "deck_gap": 0.0232, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0001} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.32, "cold_headwind": 4.01, "crosswind": 3.85, "gusty_light": 3.7, "hot_thin": 3.54, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.286 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2981, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5858, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.4578, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.2882, "plate_length_scale": 0.9697, "plate_width_scale": 0.9972, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1202} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.31, "cold_headwind": 4.01, "crosswind": 3.87, "gusty_light": 3.71, "hot_thin": 3.53, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.291 Wh/km-agg, frame 93 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.8, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.3, "plate_length_scale": 0.97, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.75, "material": 0.05} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.31, "cold_headwind": 4.02, "crosswind": 3.87, "gusty_light": 3.71, "hot_thin": 3.53, "storm": 4.83}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g6 `7b8317ed` fitness 7.262 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-stiffness specialist: a moderately wider stance (5 deg beyond stock both sweeps, plate scales raised per the sweep-deviation rule) with less waist-narrowing and thicker arms/plates than the elites for gust stiffness, while staying on lightweight carbon to avoid the mass penalty that sank earlier 'storm bruiser' attempts.
- g6 `ed5a193d` fitness 7.377 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-hardened stiff-arm design with arm_length_scale raised to 1.20 (vs the failed 0.88) to restore rotor tip clearance at a near-stock sweep, plus generous plate margins to guard the tongue-bolt/web-crush zones.
- g9 `01f642b6` fitness 6.523 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate the effect of a genuinely wide stance (front/rear sweep pushed well past stock) from the thick-arm mass penalty that sank earlier wide-stance attempts, by pairing it with thin floor-waist arms and plate scales raised generously to keep the tongue bolts and webs safely clear.
- g9 `2ab37da5` fitness 6.429 Wh/km-agg — was: Replaces the failed vector by raising deck_gap well past the elite range (0.034 vs 0.028) and restoring a stiffer plate_thickness_scale (1.1 vs the failed 0.9) to push the rotor disk clear of the deck/battery stack while keeping near-stock sweeps and carbon construction.
- g9 `8d9fd4a0` fitness 6.291 Wh/km-agg — was: Push arm_length_scale near its max (lowers disk loading) with thin low-drag arms and deliberately cut plate_thickness_scale to 0.75 (below any elite) to shed mass for hot_thin/crosswind, keeping sweep essentially at stock so plate scales need no compensation.
- g12 `17da73c8` fitness 6.333 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test the raised deck_gap (0.036, well past the 0.023 FC-stack minimum) for extra rotor/deck clearance margin, again pairing stock sweep with plate_length/width_scale at 1.00/1.03 to avoid the web-crush failure that killed the prior attempt at 0.96/0.96.
- g12 `af149969` fitness 6.355 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate the untested battery_wedge_deg dimension (all elites sit at 0.0) by tilting the battery 12 deg to cut frontal area for cold_headwind/crosswind, otherwise cloning the elite recipe's proven arm/plate/material values exactly.
- g12 `ddf19b53` fitness 6.311 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test extreme arm_length_scale (1.35 max, lower disk loading) at stock sweep, this time with plate_length/width_scale raised to 1.00/1.03 (above the elite's barely-passing 0.97/1.00) to keep the tongue-bolt web safely above the 1.90mm stock/80% floor.
- g13 `197c2380` fitness 7.025 Wh/km-agg — was: Compact stiff-arm storm specialist replacing the failed short-arm attempt: arm_length_scale raised from the failed 0.78 to 1.2 (within the tip-clearance-safe range the elites themselves use) while keeping the fat, thick, low-narrowing arms and thicker plates that trade mass for storm stiffness the elite family has abandoned.
- g13 `3844ac93` fitness 6.757 Wh/km-agg — was: Wide-stance crosswind/storm pivot replacing the failed extreme-sweep attempt: sweep deltas trimmed from 11.6/14 deg to a safer 6.6/8 deg past stock and plate_length/width_scale pushed to 1.10/1.15 (well beyond the ~0.1-per-5-deg rule) to keep the tongue bolts seated on the main plate.
- g13 `e28f0289` fitness 6.840 Wh/km-agg — was: Abandon the elite family's tight-deck-gap/no-wedge/floor-thickness trait: push deck_gap near its max for maximum rotor/deck clearance, tilt the battery near its max to cut frontal area, and raise plate_thickness_scale well above the floor for a stiffer core, while holding sweep at stock and arms moderate so none of these three untested dimensions gets confounded with a sweep or mass penalty.
- g14 `03a2ffd5` fitness 6.991 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family has converged on a minimum-mass/minimum-drag recipe (thin floor-thickness arms, near-stock sweep, tight deck gap, carbon) that has exhausted every free-mass knob without denting the storm/crosswind penalty, so this pivot abandons near-stock sweep for a genuinely wide stance (front 40, rear 48 deg) with plate scales grown per the sweep-deviation rule to test whether real aerodynami
- g14 `19c8d082` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pet_cf)) — was: Every elite uses material near 0.0 (pure carbon) because prior non-carbon attempts bundled the material switch with a heavy 'storm bruiser' stance that ate the mass budget, so this pivot isolates the material axis alone -- keep the proven elite-shaped long-arm, low-drag, near-stock-sweep geometry intact but swap to PET-CF (0.40) with plate_thickness_scale raised to 0.90 to meet the printed-materia
- g14 `e8b47537` fitness 6.371 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test the untested battery_wedge_deg=14 frontal-area-reduction dimension, fixing the rotor-tip-clearance failure by raising arm_length_scale from the failed 0.9 to a safe 1.2 while leaving sweep, plate scales and material untouched so only the battery tilt is isolated.
- g15 `470c4fea` fitness 6.574 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite also sits at the plate_thickness_scale floor (0.7-0.76) with a tight deck_gap (0.025-0.026) -- deck/standoff stiffness and rotor-to-deck clearance under gust loading have never been tested independently of arm geometry or a mass-adding stance change, so this pivot keeps the elite's low-drag floor-thin arms and stock sweep untouched but pushes plate_thickness_scale near its max and deck
- g15 `4e66ffd7` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Re-isolate the untested tough ASA material (0.75) against the all-carbon elite family, keeping the same generous arm geometry as the failed attempt but raising deck_gap to 0.042 and trimming plate_thickness_scale to 0.85 (still above the printed-material 0.8 floor) to clear the deck/battery stack.
- g15 `a55c3afa` fitness 7.773 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-stiffness pivot away from the elite family's thin/minimum-mass arms (wide arm_width=1.4, no waist narrowing, thick arm_thickness=0.007, carbon) that failed only on rotor/deck clearance -- fixed by raising deck_gap from the failed 0.027 to 0.04, well clear of the stack.
- g16 `a072202c` fitness 6.630 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite sits at the arm_waist_scale floor (0.55, maximum mid-shaft narrowing) paired with minimum width -- this pivot decouples the two, isolating waist taper as its own stiffness lever by raising arm_waist_scale to 1.10 (near-constant arm width along the shaft, no pinch point to flex/resonate under storm gusts) while keeping arm_width_scale, arm_thickness, sweep and plate geometry at the elit
- g16 `cadb6dac` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Prior material pivots away from carbon always failed validity (arm tip deflection / plate-web-too-thin) because they kept the elite's thin-waist thin-arm shape unchanged for a lower-modulus polymer -- this pivot properly compensates by isolating PETG (damped, tough) with arm_thickness raised to 0.0065 and arm_waist_scale relaxed to 0.80 to prevent tip deflection, and plate_thickness_scale set to 1
- g16 `f2511166` fitness 6.641 Wh/km-agg — was: Replaces the failed 14-deg rear-sweep pivot: trims the deviation to 10 deg past stock and grows plate_length/width_scale to 1.22/1.25 (above the prior 1.15/1.2 that let the tongue bolts miss the main plate) while keeping the same lean thin-arm carbon build to isolate wide-stance stiffness from mass penalties.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 11, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 11, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 11, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 7, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 9, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 6, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 7 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 PIVOTAL designs that abandon that trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space. Do NOT refine the elites — a pivot that lands near them is a wasted round. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 83f19dec — Isolate pure aerodynamic stance from the mass penalty that sank every prior wide-sweep attempt: push both sweeps well past stock (front +12, rear +14) with plate scales grown generously (1.28/1.24) to keep the tongue bolts safely seated, while leaving the elite's thin floor-mass carbon arms completely untouched.flew at 6.475 Wh/km
candidate 232aae29 — Every prior storm-stiffness pivot added mass to the arms and made the aggregate worse, so instead stiffen the deck/standoff core (deck_gap raised to 0.040, plate_thickness_scale raised to 1.25) while keeping the proven thin-arm, stock-sweep, low-drag geometry completely unchanged, isolating core stiffness from arm stiffness for the first time.flew at 6.504 Wh/km
candidate 41f6a585 — Same PLA+ stiff-arm/thick-plate pivot as the failed design, but with deck_gap raised from 0.028 to 0.04 since the thicker plate_thickness_scale=1.0 stack consumes more of the standoff and starved rotor-to-deck clearance at the smaller gap.flew at 6.769 Wh/km
candidate d70fce55 — rejected pre-flight (rotor too close to deck/battery) — Every non-carbon material pivot so far failed validity because it kept the elite's thin-waist, thin-arm, floor-thickness shape unchanged for a lower-modulus polymer; this pivot properly commits to PLA+ (damped, tough) with arm_thickness raised to 0.0065, arm_waist relaxed to 0.85, arm_width to 0.85 and plate_thickness_scale to 1.0, giving real margin above the printed-material floors instead of ch

54a73703249e

6.257 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	3.99
crosswind	3.85
gusty_light	3.69
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.80

1704aea48de9

6.274 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	4.00
crosswind	3.86
gusty_light	3.70
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.82

95e7cba302ec

6.296 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	4.03
crosswind	3.87
gusty_light	3.71
hot_thin	3.53
storm	4.83

0b92faa29d10

6.384 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.35
cold_headwind	4.10
crosswind	3.92
gusty_light	3.76
hot_thin	3.58
storm	4.90

83f19dec5965

6.475 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.39
cold_headwind	4.16
crosswind	3.98
gusty_light	3.81
hot_thin	3.62
storm	4.97

232aae2975ed

6.504 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.42
cold_headwind	4.16
crosswind	4.00
gusty_light	3.83
hot_thin	3.65
storm	4.99

6a910b7b31dd

6.647 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.47
cold_headwind	4.29
crosswind	4.08
gusty_light	3.90
hot_thin	3.71
storm	5.11

41f6a5857003

6.769 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.52
cold_headwind	4.39
crosswind	4.17
gusty_light	3.97
hot_thin	3.76
storm	5.20

e69f4fe82b1c

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)

2f4ca49a31f0

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

70e5d32f5850

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

281fd479fb78

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

f8c049a2a28e

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)

d87336fcc2c0

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

1c0b2050be82

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

53ba7d23d390

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)

generation 16

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 3 design(s) injected, 1 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	2
mutants (single parent)	1
pivot crosses (far parent)	7
random immigrants	1

mutation σ 0.111 of gene range
pivot σ 0.177 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 16 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.75..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.55..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.004..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.7..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274, g15 6.257 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 6 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.257 Wh/km-agg, frame 91 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2731, "arm_width_scale": 0.7651, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.4559, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.1765, "plate_length_scale": 0.9681, "plate_width_scale": 0.9972, "deck_gap": 0.0261, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1254} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.3, "cold_headwind": 3.99, "crosswind": 3.85, "gusty_light": 3.69, "hot_thin": 3.52, "storm": 4.8}
fitness 6.274 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3072, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.8, "rear_sweep_deg": 39.3318, "plate_length_scale": 0.97, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.3, "cold_headwind": 4.0, "crosswind": 3.86, "gusty_light": 3.7, "hot_thin": 3.52, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.284 Wh/km-agg, frame 91 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2628, "arm_width_scale": 0.7708, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5502, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 48.7313, "rear_sweep_deg": 35.7084, "plate_length_scale": 0.9764, "plate_width_scale": 1.0011, "deck_gap": 0.0232, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0001} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.32, "cold_headwind": 4.01, "crosswind": 3.85, "gusty_light": 3.7, "hot_thin": 3.54, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.286 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2981, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5858, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.4578, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.2882, "plate_length_scale": 0.9697, "plate_width_scale": 0.9972, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1202} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.31, "cold_headwind": 4.01, "crosswind": 3.87, "gusty_light": 3.71, "hot_thin": 3.53, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.291 Wh/km-agg, frame 93 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.8, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.3, "plate_length_scale": 0.97, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.75, "material": 0.05} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.31, "cold_headwind": 4.02, "crosswind": 3.87, "gusty_light": 3.71, "hot_thin": 3.53, "storm": 4.83}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g3 `a76a6566` fitness 6.705 Wh/km-agg — was: Wider front/rear sweep for a broader stance to help crosswind/storm stability, paired with generously enlarged (not merely stock) plate scales and deck_gap to safely clear the tongue-bolt and web-crush failures seen at extreme sweep.
- g3 `edbeb491` fitness 6.977 Wh/km-agg — was: Moderate-stiffness storm specialist: wider/thicker arms with less waist-narrowing and tough PA12-CF material plus generous deck_gap, betting that structural robustness (not raw mass-adding bulk like earlier failed 'storm-hardened' attempts) trims the worst-case storm penalty.
- g6 `0744daaf` fitness 6.943 Wh/km-agg — was: Wide-stance crosswind/storm specialist that pushes both sweeps ~6-7 deg past stock for a broader footprint, with plate_length/width_scale raised well past 1.0 (per the ~0.1-per-5-deg rule) to keep the tongue bolts seated and the plate webs thick.
- g6 `7b8317ed` fitness 7.262 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-stiffness specialist: a moderately wider stance (5 deg beyond stock both sweeps, plate scales raised per the sweep-deviation rule) with less waist-narrowing and thicker arms/plates than the elites for gust stiffness, while staying on lightweight carbon to avoid the mass penalty that sank earlier 'storm bruiser' attempts.
- g6 `ed5a193d` fitness 7.377 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-hardened stiff-arm design with arm_length_scale raised to 1.20 (vs the failed 0.88) to restore rotor tip clearance at a near-stock sweep, plus generous plate margins to guard the tongue-bolt/web-crush zones.
- g9 `01f642b6` fitness 6.523 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate the effect of a genuinely wide stance (front/rear sweep pushed well past stock) from the thick-arm mass penalty that sank earlier wide-stance attempts, by pairing it with thin floor-waist arms and plate scales raised generously to keep the tongue bolts and webs safely clear.
- g9 `2ab37da5` fitness 6.429 Wh/km-agg — was: Replaces the failed vector by raising deck_gap well past the elite range (0.034 vs 0.028) and restoring a stiffer plate_thickness_scale (1.1 vs the failed 0.9) to push the rotor disk clear of the deck/battery stack while keeping near-stock sweeps and carbon construction.
- g9 `8d9fd4a0` fitness 6.291 Wh/km-agg — was: Push arm_length_scale near its max (lowers disk loading) with thin low-drag arms and deliberately cut plate_thickness_scale to 0.75 (below any elite) to shed mass for hot_thin/crosswind, keeping sweep essentially at stock so plate scales need no compensation.
- g12 `17da73c8` fitness 6.333 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test the raised deck_gap (0.036, well past the 0.023 FC-stack minimum) for extra rotor/deck clearance margin, again pairing stock sweep with plate_length/width_scale at 1.00/1.03 to avoid the web-crush failure that killed the prior attempt at 0.96/0.96.
- g12 `af149969` fitness 6.355 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate the untested battery_wedge_deg dimension (all elites sit at 0.0) by tilting the battery 12 deg to cut frontal area for cold_headwind/crosswind, otherwise cloning the elite recipe's proven arm/plate/material values exactly.
- g12 `ddf19b53` fitness 6.311 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test extreme arm_length_scale (1.35 max, lower disk loading) at stock sweep, this time with plate_length/width_scale raised to 1.00/1.03 (above the elite's barely-passing 0.97/1.00) to keep the tongue-bolt web safely above the 1.90mm stock/80% floor.
- g13 `197c2380` fitness 7.025 Wh/km-agg — was: Compact stiff-arm storm specialist replacing the failed short-arm attempt: arm_length_scale raised from the failed 0.78 to 1.2 (within the tip-clearance-safe range the elites themselves use) while keeping the fat, thick, low-narrowing arms and thicker plates that trade mass for storm stiffness the elite family has abandoned.
- g13 `3844ac93` fitness 6.757 Wh/km-agg — was: Wide-stance crosswind/storm pivot replacing the failed extreme-sweep attempt: sweep deltas trimmed from 11.6/14 deg to a safer 6.6/8 deg past stock and plate_length/width_scale pushed to 1.10/1.15 (well beyond the ~0.1-per-5-deg rule) to keep the tongue bolts seated on the main plate.
- g13 `e28f0289` fitness 6.840 Wh/km-agg — was: Abandon the elite family's tight-deck-gap/no-wedge/floor-thickness trait: push deck_gap near its max for maximum rotor/deck clearance, tilt the battery near its max to cut frontal area, and raise plate_thickness_scale well above the floor for a stiffer core, while holding sweep at stock and arms moderate so none of these three untested dimensions gets confounded with a sweep or mass penalty.
- g14 `03a2ffd5` fitness 6.991 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family has converged on a minimum-mass/minimum-drag recipe (thin floor-thickness arms, near-stock sweep, tight deck gap, carbon) that has exhausted every free-mass knob without denting the storm/crosswind penalty, so this pivot abandons near-stock sweep for a genuinely wide stance (front 40, rear 48 deg) with plate scales grown per the sweep-deviation rule to test whether real aerodynami
- g14 `19c8d082` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pet_cf)) — was: Every elite uses material near 0.0 (pure carbon) because prior non-carbon attempts bundled the material switch with a heavy 'storm bruiser' stance that ate the mass budget, so this pivot isolates the material axis alone -- keep the proven elite-shaped long-arm, low-drag, near-stock-sweep geometry intact but swap to PET-CF (0.40) with plate_thickness_scale raised to 0.90 to meet the printed-materia
- g14 `e8b47537` fitness 6.371 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test the untested battery_wedge_deg=14 frontal-area-reduction dimension, fixing the rotor-tip-clearance failure by raising arm_length_scale from the failed 0.9 to a safe 1.2 while leaving sweep, plate scales and material untouched so only the battery tilt is isolated.
- g15 `470c4fea` fitness 6.574 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite also sits at the plate_thickness_scale floor (0.7-0.76) with a tight deck_gap (0.025-0.026) -- deck/standoff stiffness and rotor-to-deck clearance under gust loading have never been tested independently of arm geometry or a mass-adding stance change, so this pivot keeps the elite's low-drag floor-thin arms and stock sweep untouched but pushes plate_thickness_scale near its max and deck
- g15 `4e66ffd7` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Re-isolate the untested tough ASA material (0.75) against the all-carbon elite family, keeping the same generous arm geometry as the failed attempt but raising deck_gap to 0.042 and trimming plate_thickness_scale to 0.85 (still above the printed-material 0.8 floor) to clear the deck/battery stack.
- g15 `a55c3afa` fitness 7.773 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-stiffness pivot away from the elite family's thin/minimum-mass arms (wide arm_width=1.4, no waist narrowing, thick arm_thickness=0.007, carbon) that failed only on rotor/deck clearance -- fixed by raising deck_gap from the failed 0.027 to 0.04, well clear of the stack.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 10, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 10, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 11, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 7, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 9, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 6 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 PIVOTAL designs that abandon that trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space. Do NOT refine the elites — a pivot that lands near them is a wasted round. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate a072202c — Every elite sits at the arm_waist_scale floor (0.55, maximum mid-shaft narrowing) paired with minimum width -- this pivot decouples the two, isolating waist taper as its own stiffness lever by raising arm_waist_scale to 1.10 (near-constant arm width along the shaft, no pinch point to flex/resonate under storm gusts) while keeping arm_width_scale, arm_thickness, sweep and plate geometry at the elitflew at 6.630 Wh/km
candidate cadb6dac — Prior material pivots away from carbon always failed validity (arm tip deflection / plate-web-too-thin) because they kept the elite's thin-waist thin-arm shape unchanged for a lower-modulus polymer -- this pivot properly compensates by isolating PETG (damped, tough) with arm_thickness raised to 0.0065 and arm_waist_scale relaxed to 0.80 to prevent tip deflection, and plate_thickness_scale set to 1invalid — arm tip deflection (petg)
candidate f2511166 — Replaces the failed 14-deg rear-sweep pivot: trims the deviation to 10 deg past stock and grows plate_length/width_scale to 1.22/1.25 (above the prior 1.15/1.2 that let the tongue bolts miss the main plate) while keeping the same lean thin-arm carbon build to isolate wide-stance stiffness from mass penalties.flew at 6.641 Wh/km
candidate e1d629ce — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — The elite family has converged on a symmetric near-stock, minimum-everything (thin waist, thin width, floor thickness) stance that has plateaued on storm/crosswind; this pivot keeps the elite's low-mass thin arms but pushes rear_sweep_deg alone to a genuinely wide 50 deg (asymmetric DeadCat stance) with plate scales grown per the sweep-deviation rule, testing whether real aerodynamic/yaw-stability

54a73703249e

6.257 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	3.99
crosswind	3.85
gusty_light	3.69
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.80

1704aea48de9

6.274 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	4.00
crosswind	3.86
gusty_light	3.70
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.82

5ec33e3dea91

6.322 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.32
cold_headwind	4.05
crosswind	3.88
gusty_light	3.72
hot_thin	3.54
storm	4.85

c61da0591e9a

6.337 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.33
cold_headwind	4.06
crosswind	3.89
gusty_light	3.73
hot_thin	3.55
storm	4.86

b3aaaeaeec58

6.367 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.36
cold_headwind	4.07
crosswind	3.91
gusty_light	3.75
hot_thin	3.58
storm	4.88

37eb0ed73f7e

6.418 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.39
cold_headwind	4.11
crosswind	3.94
gusty_light	3.78
hot_thin	3.60
storm	4.92

fb0aaa4c0bbf

6.475 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.42
cold_headwind	4.16
crosswind	3.97
gusty_light	3.81
hot_thin	3.63
storm	4.97

a072202cd3c9

6.630 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.46
cold_headwind	4.28
crosswind	4.07
gusty_light	3.89
hot_thin	3.70
storm	5.10

f25111665ee7

6.641 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.48
cold_headwind	4.27
crosswind	4.09
gusty_light	3.90
hot_thin	3.71
storm	5.10

f9f7a0a90601

7.779 wh/km agg

calm_warm	4.02
cold_headwind	5.12
crosswind	4.75
gusty_light	4.53
hot_thin	4.29
storm	5.99

cb6dc8edc94d

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

3359f647701d

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)

f8c9ae899625

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

700786179886

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)

c84184dd7731

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

cadb6dac34da

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (petg)

calm_warm	3.52
cold_headwind	4.36
crosswind	4.17
gusty_light	3.97
hot_thin	3.75
storm	5.19

generation 15

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 3 design(s) injected, 2 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	4
pivot crosses (far parent)	7

mutation σ 0.114 of gene range
pivot σ 0.182 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 15 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.75..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.55..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.004..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.7..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274, g14 6.274 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 5 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.274 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3072, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.8, "rear_sweep_deg": 39.3318, "plate_length_scale": 0.97, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.3, "cold_headwind": 4.0, "crosswind": 3.86, "gusty_light": 3.7, "hot_thin": 3.52, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.286 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2981, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5858, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.4578, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.2882, "plate_length_scale": 0.9697, "plate_width_scale": 0.9972, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1202} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.31, "cold_headwind": 4.01, "crosswind": 3.87, "gusty_light": 3.71, "hot_thin": 3.53, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.291 Wh/km-agg, frame 93 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.8, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.3, "plate_length_scale": 0.97, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.75, "material": 0.05} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.31, "cold_headwind": 4.02, "crosswind": 3.87, "gusty_light": 3.71, "hot_thin": 3.53, "storm": 4.83}
fitness 6.308 Wh/km-agg, frame 94 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.264, "arm_width_scale": 0.8556, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.9039, "rear_sweep_deg": 35.9787, "plate_length_scale": 0.9731, "plate_width_scale": 0.9864, "deck_gap": 0.0262, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7368, "material": 0.051} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.32, "cold_headwind": 4.03, "crosswind": 3.88, "gusty_light": 3.72, "hot_thin": 3.54, "storm": 4.84}
fitness 6.308 Wh/km-agg, frame 93 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3096, "arm_width_scale": 0.7559, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 35.4827, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.5954, "plate_length_scale": 0.9803, "plate_width_scale": 0.9817, "deck_gap": 0.025, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7568, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.32, "cold_headwind": 4.03, "crosswind": 3.88, "gusty_light": 3.72, "hot_thin": 3.54, "storm": 4.84}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g0 `9be55419` fitness 7.598 Wh/km-agg — was: Heavy-duty ASA build with thick plates and wide arms near stock sweep for maximum stiffness/durability robustness in storm gusts, accepting a mass penalty.
- g0 `9f8cb660` fitness 6.908 Wh/km-agg — was: Narrow low-drag arms with a tilted battery to cut frontal area for cold_headwind/crosswind, keeping sweep change modest and deck_gap raised for safety margin.
- g3 `4ac62300` fitness 7.026 Wh/km-agg — was: Near-stock sweep (small deltas, clear of the tongue-collision minimum) with plate scales pushed well above the 0.95 web-crush threshold and a thicker printed PLA+ build to test a tougher, mass-tolerant alternative to carbon.
- g3 `a76a6566` fitness 6.705 Wh/km-agg — was: Wider front/rear sweep for a broader stance to help crosswind/storm stability, paired with generously enlarged (not merely stock) plate scales and deck_gap to safely clear the tongue-bolt and web-crush failures seen at extreme sweep.
- g3 `edbeb491` fitness 6.977 Wh/km-agg — was: Moderate-stiffness storm specialist: wider/thicker arms with less waist-narrowing and tough PA12-CF material plus generous deck_gap, betting that structural robustness (not raw mass-adding bulk like earlier failed 'storm-hardened' attempts) trims the worst-case storm penalty.
- g6 `0744daaf` fitness 6.943 Wh/km-agg — was: Wide-stance crosswind/storm specialist that pushes both sweeps ~6-7 deg past stock for a broader footprint, with plate_length/width_scale raised well past 1.0 (per the ~0.1-per-5-deg rule) to keep the tongue bolts seated and the plate webs thick.
- g6 `7b8317ed` fitness 7.262 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-stiffness specialist: a moderately wider stance (5 deg beyond stock both sweeps, plate scales raised per the sweep-deviation rule) with less waist-narrowing and thicker arms/plates than the elites for gust stiffness, while staying on lightweight carbon to avoid the mass penalty that sank earlier 'storm bruiser' attempts.
- g6 `ed5a193d` fitness 7.377 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-hardened stiff-arm design with arm_length_scale raised to 1.20 (vs the failed 0.88) to restore rotor tip clearance at a near-stock sweep, plus generous plate margins to guard the tongue-bolt/web-crush zones.
- g9 `01f642b6` fitness 6.523 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate the effect of a genuinely wide stance (front/rear sweep pushed well past stock) from the thick-arm mass penalty that sank earlier wide-stance attempts, by pairing it with thin floor-waist arms and plate scales raised generously to keep the tongue bolts and webs safely clear.
- g9 `2ab37da5` fitness 6.429 Wh/km-agg — was: Replaces the failed vector by raising deck_gap well past the elite range (0.034 vs 0.028) and restoring a stiffer plate_thickness_scale (1.1 vs the failed 0.9) to push the rotor disk clear of the deck/battery stack while keeping near-stock sweeps and carbon construction.
- g9 `8d9fd4a0` fitness 6.291 Wh/km-agg — was: Push arm_length_scale near its max (lowers disk loading) with thin low-drag arms and deliberately cut plate_thickness_scale to 0.75 (below any elite) to shed mass for hot_thin/crosswind, keeping sweep essentially at stock so plate scales need no compensation.
- g12 `17da73c8` fitness 6.333 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test the raised deck_gap (0.036, well past the 0.023 FC-stack minimum) for extra rotor/deck clearance margin, again pairing stock sweep with plate_length/width_scale at 1.00/1.03 to avoid the web-crush failure that killed the prior attempt at 0.96/0.96.
- g12 `af149969` fitness 6.355 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate the untested battery_wedge_deg dimension (all elites sit at 0.0) by tilting the battery 12 deg to cut frontal area for cold_headwind/crosswind, otherwise cloning the elite recipe's proven arm/plate/material values exactly.
- g12 `ddf19b53` fitness 6.311 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test extreme arm_length_scale (1.35 max, lower disk loading) at stock sweep, this time with plate_length/width_scale raised to 1.00/1.03 (above the elite's barely-passing 0.97/1.00) to keep the tongue-bolt web safely above the 1.90mm stock/80% floor.
- g13 `197c2380` fitness 7.025 Wh/km-agg — was: Compact stiff-arm storm specialist replacing the failed short-arm attempt: arm_length_scale raised from the failed 0.78 to 1.2 (within the tip-clearance-safe range the elites themselves use) while keeping the fat, thick, low-narrowing arms and thicker plates that trade mass for storm stiffness the elite family has abandoned.
- g13 `3844ac93` fitness 6.757 Wh/km-agg — was: Wide-stance crosswind/storm pivot replacing the failed extreme-sweep attempt: sweep deltas trimmed from 11.6/14 deg to a safer 6.6/8 deg past stock and plate_length/width_scale pushed to 1.10/1.15 (well beyond the ~0.1-per-5-deg rule) to keep the tongue bolts seated on the main plate.
- g13 `e28f0289` fitness 6.840 Wh/km-agg — was: Abandon the elite family's tight-deck-gap/no-wedge/floor-thickness trait: push deck_gap near its max for maximum rotor/deck clearance, tilt the battery near its max to cut frontal area, and raise plate_thickness_scale well above the floor for a stiffer core, while holding sweep at stock and arms moderate so none of these three untested dimensions gets confounded with a sweep or mass penalty.
- g14 `03a2ffd5` fitness 6.991 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family has converged on a minimum-mass/minimum-drag recipe (thin floor-thickness arms, near-stock sweep, tight deck gap, carbon) that has exhausted every free-mass knob without denting the storm/crosswind penalty, so this pivot abandons near-stock sweep for a genuinely wide stance (front 40, rear 48 deg) with plate scales grown per the sweep-deviation rule to test whether real aerodynami
- g14 `19c8d082` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pet_cf)) — was: Every elite uses material near 0.0 (pure carbon) because prior non-carbon attempts bundled the material switch with a heavy 'storm bruiser' stance that ate the mass budget, so this pivot isolates the material axis alone -- keep the proven elite-shaped long-arm, low-drag, near-stock-sweep geometry intact but swap to PET-CF (0.40) with plate_thickness_scale raised to 0.90 to meet the printed-materia
- g14 `e8b47537` fitness 6.371 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test the untested battery_wedge_deg=14 frontal-area-reduction dimension, fixing the rotor-tip-clearance failure by raising arm_length_scale from the failed 0.9 to a safe 1.2 while leaving sweep, plate scales and material untouched so only the battery tilt is isolated.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 9, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 10, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 11, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 7, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 8, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 5 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 PIVOTAL designs that abandon that trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space. Do NOT refine the elites — a pivot that lands near them is a wasted round. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 470c4fea — Every elite also sits at the plate_thickness_scale floor (0.7-0.76) with a tight deck_gap (0.025-0.026) -- deck/standoff stiffness and rotor-to-deck clearance under gust loading have never been tested independently of arm geometry or a mass-adding stance change, so this pivot keeps the elite's low-drag floor-thin arms and stock sweep untouched but pushes plate_thickness_scale near its max and deckflew at 6.574 Wh/km
candidate a55c3afa — Storm-stiffness pivot away from the elite family's thin/minimum-mass arms (wide arm_width=1.4, no waist narrowing, thick arm_thickness=0.007, carbon) that failed only on rotor/deck clearance -- fixed by raising deck_gap from the failed 0.027 to 0.04, well clear of the stack.flew at 7.773 Wh/km
candidate 4e66ffd7 — Re-isolate the untested tough ASA material (0.75) against the all-carbon elite family, keeping the same generous arm geometry as the failed attempt but raising deck_gap to 0.042 and trimming plate_thickness_scale to 0.85 (still above the printed-material 0.8 floor) to clear the deck/battery stack.invalid — arm tip deflection (petg)
candidate e69b2732 — rejected pre-flight (rotor too close to deck/battery) — The elite family shares thin/narrow/floor-thickness arms (width 0.75-0.86, waist 0.55, thickness 0.004) with near-stock sweep -- storm has stayed pinned at 4.82-4.84 Wh/km across all of them despite every other scenario improving, suggesting arm flex under gust loading (not mass or drag) is now the binding constraint on storm; this isolates pure arm structural stiffness (max width, max waist/no-na
candidate 239d2504 — rejected pre-flight (rotor too close to deck/battery) — Every elite and every prior material pivot has stayed at material~0.0 (carbon) because past non-carbon attempts bundled the switch with a heavy wide-stance or thin-arm combo that failed on tip deflection or web thickness; this isolates a genuinely tougher thermoplastic (PETG, 0.75) at stock sweep and elite-like plate scale, with arm width/waist pulled back from the elite's drag-optimized extremes

54a73703249e

6.257 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	3.99
crosswind	3.85
gusty_light	3.69
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.80

1704aea48de9

6.274 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	4.00
crosswind	3.86
gusty_light	3.70
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.82

210243eee823

6.284 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.32
cold_headwind	4.01
crosswind	3.85
gusty_light	3.70
hot_thin	3.54
storm	4.82

ba61fc4b63fb

6.286 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.31
cold_headwind	4.01
crosswind	3.87
gusty_light	3.71
hot_thin	3.53
storm	4.82

fb429755f2c9

6.309 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.33
cold_headwind	4.04
crosswind	3.86
gusty_light	3.72
hot_thin	3.55
storm	4.84

d7ed8abf5d4a

6.311 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.31
cold_headwind	4.04
crosswind	3.88
gusty_light	3.72
hot_thin	3.54
storm	4.84

7d6bb6555ba3

6.360 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.35
cold_headwind	4.07
crosswind	3.91
gusty_light	3.75
hot_thin	3.57
storm	4.88

567629068d98

6.397 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.38
cold_headwind	4.09
crosswind	3.93
gusty_light	3.77
hot_thin	3.60
storm	4.91

bb51c78c03f1

6.525 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.43
cold_headwind	4.20
crosswind	3.99
gusty_light	3.83
hot_thin	3.66
storm	5.01

470c4fea7616

6.574 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.46
cold_headwind	4.19
crosswind	4.04
gusty_light	3.87
hot_thin	3.69
storm	5.05

a55c3afad400

7.773 wh/km agg

calm_warm	4.04
cold_headwind	5.05
crosswind	4.76
gusty_light	4.54
hot_thin	4.31
storm	5.98

1d127f47417e

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

22d0b8aa0446

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

2a4226f51df6

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)

7b4d6d97d3a2

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

4e66ffd73fcf

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (petg)

calm_warm	3.56
cold_headwind	4.47
crosswind	4.22
gusty_light	4.02
hot_thin	3.80
storm	5.28

generation 14

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 3 design(s) injected, 1 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	3
pivot crosses (far parent)	7
random immigrants	1

mutation σ 0.118 of gene range
pivot σ 0.188 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 14 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.75..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.55..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.004..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.7..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274, g13 6.274 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 4 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.274 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3072, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.8, "rear_sweep_deg": 39.3318, "plate_length_scale": 0.97, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.3, "cold_headwind": 4.0, "crosswind": 3.86, "gusty_light": 3.7, "hot_thin": 3.52, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.286 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2981, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5858, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.4578, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.2882, "plate_length_scale": 0.9697, "plate_width_scale": 0.9972, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1202} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.31, "cold_headwind": 4.01, "crosswind": 3.87, "gusty_light": 3.71, "hot_thin": 3.53, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.291 Wh/km-agg, frame 93 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.8, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.3, "plate_length_scale": 0.97, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.75, "material": 0.05} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.31, "cold_headwind": 4.02, "crosswind": 3.87, "gusty_light": 3.71, "hot_thin": 3.53, "storm": 4.83}
fitness 6.308 Wh/km-agg, frame 94 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.264, "arm_width_scale": 0.8556, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.9039, "rear_sweep_deg": 35.9787, "plate_length_scale": 0.9731, "plate_width_scale": 0.9864, "deck_gap": 0.0262, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7368, "material": 0.051} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.32, "cold_headwind": 4.03, "crosswind": 3.88, "gusty_light": 3.72, "hot_thin": 3.54, "storm": 4.84}
fitness 6.308 Wh/km-agg, frame 93 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3096, "arm_width_scale": 0.7559, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 35.4827, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.5954, "plate_length_scale": 0.9803, "plate_width_scale": 0.9817, "deck_gap": 0.025, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7568, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.32, "cold_headwind": 4.03, "crosswind": 3.88, "gusty_light": 3.72, "hot_thin": 3.54, "storm": 4.84}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g0 `59b9a52c` fitness 7.127 Wh/km-agg — was: Compact, wide, stiff-armed storm-hardened design with a modest sweep shift and generous deck_gap/plate scale margin to clear the prior rotor-to-deck failure.
- g0 `7792e425` fitness 6.886 Wh/km-agg — was: Long low-disk-loading arms at exact stock sweep with a safely-oversized plate footprint and carbon construction, targeting hot_thin efficiency without touching the plate-web failure zone.
- g0 `89ffb906` fitness 8.479 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-hardened stiff bruiser: wide thick arms, long wheelbase and thick carbon plates trade mass for structural robustness, targeting the storm scenario that dominates worst-case fitness.
- g0 `9be55419` fitness 7.598 Wh/km-agg — was: Heavy-duty ASA build with thick plates and wide arms near stock sweep for maximum stiffness/durability robustness in storm gusts, accepting a mass penalty.
- g0 `9f8cb660` fitness 6.908 Wh/km-agg — was: Narrow low-drag arms with a tilted battery to cut frontal area for cold_headwind/crosswind, keeping sweep change modest and deck_gap raised for safety margin.
- g3 `4ac62300` fitness 7.026 Wh/km-agg — was: Near-stock sweep (small deltas, clear of the tongue-collision minimum) with plate scales pushed well above the 0.95 web-crush threshold and a thicker printed PLA+ build to test a tougher, mass-tolerant alternative to carbon.
- g3 `a76a6566` fitness 6.705 Wh/km-agg — was: Wider front/rear sweep for a broader stance to help crosswind/storm stability, paired with generously enlarged (not merely stock) plate scales and deck_gap to safely clear the tongue-bolt and web-crush failures seen at extreme sweep.
- g3 `edbeb491` fitness 6.977 Wh/km-agg — was: Moderate-stiffness storm specialist: wider/thicker arms with less waist-narrowing and tough PA12-CF material plus generous deck_gap, betting that structural robustness (not raw mass-adding bulk like earlier failed 'storm-hardened' attempts) trims the worst-case storm penalty.
- g6 `0744daaf` fitness 6.943 Wh/km-agg — was: Wide-stance crosswind/storm specialist that pushes both sweeps ~6-7 deg past stock for a broader footprint, with plate_length/width_scale raised well past 1.0 (per the ~0.1-per-5-deg rule) to keep the tongue bolts seated and the plate webs thick.
- g6 `7b8317ed` fitness 7.262 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-stiffness specialist: a moderately wider stance (5 deg beyond stock both sweeps, plate scales raised per the sweep-deviation rule) with less waist-narrowing and thicker arms/plates than the elites for gust stiffness, while staying on lightweight carbon to avoid the mass penalty that sank earlier 'storm bruiser' attempts.
- g6 `ed5a193d` fitness 7.377 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-hardened stiff-arm design with arm_length_scale raised to 1.20 (vs the failed 0.88) to restore rotor tip clearance at a near-stock sweep, plus generous plate margins to guard the tongue-bolt/web-crush zones.
- g9 `01f642b6` fitness 6.523 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate the effect of a genuinely wide stance (front/rear sweep pushed well past stock) from the thick-arm mass penalty that sank earlier wide-stance attempts, by pairing it with thin floor-waist arms and plate scales raised generously to keep the tongue bolts and webs safely clear.
- g9 `2ab37da5` fitness 6.429 Wh/km-agg — was: Replaces the failed vector by raising deck_gap well past the elite range (0.034 vs 0.028) and restoring a stiffer plate_thickness_scale (1.1 vs the failed 0.9) to push the rotor disk clear of the deck/battery stack while keeping near-stock sweeps and carbon construction.
- g9 `8d9fd4a0` fitness 6.291 Wh/km-agg — was: Push arm_length_scale near its max (lowers disk loading) with thin low-drag arms and deliberately cut plate_thickness_scale to 0.75 (below any elite) to shed mass for hot_thin/crosswind, keeping sweep essentially at stock so plate scales need no compensation.
- g12 `17da73c8` fitness 6.333 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test the raised deck_gap (0.036, well past the 0.023 FC-stack minimum) for extra rotor/deck clearance margin, again pairing stock sweep with plate_length/width_scale at 1.00/1.03 to avoid the web-crush failure that killed the prior attempt at 0.96/0.96.
- g12 `af149969` fitness 6.355 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate the untested battery_wedge_deg dimension (all elites sit at 0.0) by tilting the battery 12 deg to cut frontal area for cold_headwind/crosswind, otherwise cloning the elite recipe's proven arm/plate/material values exactly.
- g12 `ddf19b53` fitness 6.311 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test extreme arm_length_scale (1.35 max, lower disk loading) at stock sweep, this time with plate_length/width_scale raised to 1.00/1.03 (above the elite's barely-passing 0.97/1.00) to keep the tongue-bolt web safely above the 1.90mm stock/80% floor.
- g13 `197c2380` fitness 7.025 Wh/km-agg — was: Compact stiff-arm storm specialist replacing the failed short-arm attempt: arm_length_scale raised from the failed 0.78 to 1.2 (within the tip-clearance-safe range the elites themselves use) while keeping the fat, thick, low-narrowing arms and thicker plates that trade mass for storm stiffness the elite family has abandoned.
- g13 `3844ac93` fitness 6.757 Wh/km-agg — was: Wide-stance crosswind/storm pivot replacing the failed extreme-sweep attempt: sweep deltas trimmed from 11.6/14 deg to a safer 6.6/8 deg past stock and plate_length/width_scale pushed to 1.10/1.15 (well beyond the ~0.1-per-5-deg rule) to keep the tongue bolts seated on the main plate.
- g13 `e28f0289` fitness 6.840 Wh/km-agg — was: Abandon the elite family's tight-deck-gap/no-wedge/floor-thickness trait: push deck_gap near its max for maximum rotor/deck clearance, tilt the battery near its max to cut frontal area, and raise plate_thickness_scale well above the floor for a stiffer core, while holding sweep at stock and arms moderate so none of these three untested dimensions gets confounded with a sweep or mass penalty.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 8, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 10, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 11, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 7, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 7, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 4 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 PIVOTAL designs that abandon that trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space. Do NOT refine the elites — a pivot that lands near them is a wasted round. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 03a2ffd5 — The elite family has converged on a minimum-mass/minimum-drag recipe (thin floor-thickness arms, near-stock sweep, tight deck gap, carbon) that has exhausted every free-mass knob without denting the storm/crosswind penalty, so this pivot abandons near-stock sweep for a genuinely wide stance (front 40, rear 48 deg) with plate scales grown per the sweep-deviation rule to test whether real aerodynamiflew at 6.991 Wh/km
candidate 19c8d082 — Every elite uses material near 0.0 (pure carbon) because prior non-carbon attempts bundled the material switch with a heavy 'storm bruiser' stance that ate the mass budget, so this pivot isolates the material axis alone -- keep the proven elite-shaped long-arm, low-drag, near-stock-sweep geometry intact but swap to PET-CF (0.40) with plate_thickness_scale raised to 0.90 to meet the printed-materiainvalid — arm tip deflection (pet_cf)
candidate e8b47537 — Re-test the untested battery_wedge_deg=14 frontal-area-reduction dimension, fixing the rotor-tip-clearance failure by raising arm_length_scale from the failed 0.9 to a safe 1.2 while leaving sweep, plate scales and material untouched so only the battery tilt is isolated.flew at 6.371 Wh/km
candidate e1f8e520 — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Every elite sits at arm_length_scale ~1.3 (low disk loading, long low-drag arms) with battery_wedge_deg untouched at 0, so this pivot flips both traits at once -- a compact, higher-disk-loading frame (arm_length_scale 0.90) paired with an aggressive 14 deg battery tilt to slash frontal area -- isolating whether a shorter/lighter airframe plus real drag-shedding tilt beats the long-arm family on co

1704aea48de9

6.274 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	4.00
crosswind	3.86
gusty_light	3.70
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.82

ba61fc4b63fb

6.286 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.31
cold_headwind	4.01
crosswind	3.87
gusty_light	3.71
hot_thin	3.53
storm	4.82

2bd9dc0e44f5

6.324 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.34
cold_headwind	4.05
crosswind	3.87
gusty_light	3.72
hot_thin	3.55
storm	4.85

e8b475371bd4

6.371 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.36
cold_headwind	4.08
crosswind	3.92
gusty_light	3.75
hot_thin	3.57
storm	4.89

7d84b9157ec6

6.373 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.36
cold_headwind	4.08
crosswind	3.92
gusty_light	3.75
hot_thin	3.58
storm	4.89

f06711515158

6.379 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.36
cold_headwind	4.08
crosswind	3.91
gusty_light	3.76
hot_thin	3.58
storm	4.90

415bf8bfe69b

6.395 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.36
cold_headwind	4.10
crosswind	3.93
gusty_light	3.76
hot_thin	3.58
storm	4.91

bd01e3ab19cf

6.468 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.39
cold_headwind	4.15
crosswind	3.98
gusty_light	3.81
hot_thin	3.62
storm	4.97

d418422a216b

6.478 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.39
cold_headwind	4.17
crosswind	3.98
gusty_light	3.81
hot_thin	3.62
storm	4.98

03a2ffd572b3

6.991 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.65
cold_headwind	4.50
crosswind	4.30
gusty_light	4.10
hot_thin	3.90
storm	5.37

2f82e3339abb

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)

a2a30a063191

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

47e4b91aecdb

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

8353dbb95b00

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

091ed3266995

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)

19c8d0829c1b

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pet_cf)

calm_warm	3.28
cold_headwind	4.04
crosswind	3.87
gusty_light	3.70
hot_thin	3.51
storm	4.83

generation 13

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 3 design(s) injected, 2 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	4
pivot crosses (far parent)	7

mutation σ 0.121 of gene range
pivot σ 0.194 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 13 · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.75..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.55..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.004..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.7..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274, g12 6.274 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 3 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.274 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3072, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.8, "rear_sweep_deg": 39.3318, "plate_length_scale": 0.97, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.3, "cold_headwind": 4.0, "crosswind": 3.86, "gusty_light": 3.7, "hot_thin": 3.52, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.286 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2981, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5858, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.4578, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.2882, "plate_length_scale": 0.9697, "plate_width_scale": 0.9972, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1202} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.31, "cold_headwind": 4.01, "crosswind": 3.87, "gusty_light": 3.71, "hot_thin": 3.53, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.291 Wh/km-agg, frame 93 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.8, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.3, "plate_length_scale": 0.97, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.75, "material": 0.05} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.31, "cold_headwind": 4.02, "crosswind": 3.87, "gusty_light": 3.71, "hot_thin": 3.53, "storm": 4.83}
fitness 6.308 Wh/km-agg, frame 94 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.264, "arm_width_scale": 0.8556, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.9039, "rear_sweep_deg": 35.9787, "plate_length_scale": 0.9731, "plate_width_scale": 0.9864, "deck_gap": 0.0262, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7368, "material": 0.051} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.32, "cold_headwind": 4.03, "crosswind": 3.88, "gusty_light": 3.72, "hot_thin": 3.54, "storm": 4.84}
fitness 6.308 Wh/km-agg, frame 93 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3096, "arm_width_scale": 0.7559, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 35.4827, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.5954, "plate_length_scale": 0.9803, "plate_width_scale": 0.9817, "deck_gap": 0.025, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7568, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.32, "cold_headwind": 4.03, "crosswind": 3.88, "gusty_light": 3.72, "hot_thin": 3.54, "storm": 4.84}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g0 `59b9a52c` fitness 7.127 Wh/km-agg — was: Compact, wide, stiff-armed storm-hardened design with a modest sweep shift and generous deck_gap/plate scale margin to clear the prior rotor-to-deck failure.
- g0 `7792e425` fitness 6.886 Wh/km-agg — was: Long low-disk-loading arms at exact stock sweep with a safely-oversized plate footprint and carbon construction, targeting hot_thin efficiency without touching the plate-web failure zone.
- g0 `89ffb906` fitness 8.479 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-hardened stiff bruiser: wide thick arms, long wheelbase and thick carbon plates trade mass for structural robustness, targeting the storm scenario that dominates worst-case fitness.
- g0 `9be55419` fitness 7.598 Wh/km-agg — was: Heavy-duty ASA build with thick plates and wide arms near stock sweep for maximum stiffness/durability robustness in storm gusts, accepting a mass penalty.
- g0 `9f8cb660` fitness 6.908 Wh/km-agg — was: Narrow low-drag arms with a tilted battery to cut frontal area for cold_headwind/crosswind, keeping sweep change modest and deck_gap raised for safety margin.
- g3 `4ac62300` fitness 7.026 Wh/km-agg — was: Near-stock sweep (small deltas, clear of the tongue-collision minimum) with plate scales pushed well above the 0.95 web-crush threshold and a thicker printed PLA+ build to test a tougher, mass-tolerant alternative to carbon.
- g3 `a76a6566` fitness 6.705 Wh/km-agg — was: Wider front/rear sweep for a broader stance to help crosswind/storm stability, paired with generously enlarged (not merely stock) plate scales and deck_gap to safely clear the tongue-bolt and web-crush failures seen at extreme sweep.
- g3 `edbeb491` fitness 6.977 Wh/km-agg — was: Moderate-stiffness storm specialist: wider/thicker arms with less waist-narrowing and tough PA12-CF material plus generous deck_gap, betting that structural robustness (not raw mass-adding bulk like earlier failed 'storm-hardened' attempts) trims the worst-case storm penalty.
- g6 `0744daaf` fitness 6.943 Wh/km-agg — was: Wide-stance crosswind/storm specialist that pushes both sweeps ~6-7 deg past stock for a broader footprint, with plate_length/width_scale raised well past 1.0 (per the ~0.1-per-5-deg rule) to keep the tongue bolts seated and the plate webs thick.
- g6 `7b8317ed` fitness 7.262 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-stiffness specialist: a moderately wider stance (5 deg beyond stock both sweeps, plate scales raised per the sweep-deviation rule) with less waist-narrowing and thicker arms/plates than the elites for gust stiffness, while staying on lightweight carbon to avoid the mass penalty that sank earlier 'storm bruiser' attempts.
- g6 `ed5a193d` fitness 7.377 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-hardened stiff-arm design with arm_length_scale raised to 1.20 (vs the failed 0.88) to restore rotor tip clearance at a near-stock sweep, plus generous plate margins to guard the tongue-bolt/web-crush zones.
- g9 `01f642b6` fitness 6.523 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate the effect of a genuinely wide stance (front/rear sweep pushed well past stock) from the thick-arm mass penalty that sank earlier wide-stance attempts, by pairing it with thin floor-waist arms and plate scales raised generously to keep the tongue bolts and webs safely clear.
- g9 `2ab37da5` fitness 6.429 Wh/km-agg — was: Replaces the failed vector by raising deck_gap well past the elite range (0.034 vs 0.028) and restoring a stiffer plate_thickness_scale (1.1 vs the failed 0.9) to push the rotor disk clear of the deck/battery stack while keeping near-stock sweeps and carbon construction.
- g9 `8d9fd4a0` fitness 6.291 Wh/km-agg — was: Push arm_length_scale near its max (lowers disk loading) with thin low-drag arms and deliberately cut plate_thickness_scale to 0.75 (below any elite) to shed mass for hot_thin/crosswind, keeping sweep essentially at stock so plate scales need no compensation.
- g12 `17da73c8` fitness 6.333 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test the raised deck_gap (0.036, well past the 0.023 FC-stack minimum) for extra rotor/deck clearance margin, again pairing stock sweep with plate_length/width_scale at 1.00/1.03 to avoid the web-crush failure that killed the prior attempt at 0.96/0.96.
- g12 `af149969` fitness 6.355 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate the untested battery_wedge_deg dimension (all elites sit at 0.0) by tilting the battery 12 deg to cut frontal area for cold_headwind/crosswind, otherwise cloning the elite recipe's proven arm/plate/material values exactly.
- g12 `ddf19b53` fitness 6.311 Wh/km-agg — was: Re-test extreme arm_length_scale (1.35 max, lower disk loading) at stock sweep, this time with plate_length/width_scale raised to 1.00/1.03 (above the elite's barely-passing 0.97/1.00) to keep the tongue-bolt web safely above the 1.90mm stock/80% floor.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 6, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 9, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 11, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 7, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 7, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

THE SEARCH HAS PLATEAUED: the best-so-far has not improved significantly for 3 generation(s). This is a PIVOT round. Take a step back: reason about WHY the current elite family has stopped improving — what shared trait is this local optimum built on, and what does the per-scenario data say it costs? Then propose exactly 3 PIVOTAL designs that abandon that trait and stake out genuinely different regions of the genome space. Do NOT refine the elites — a pivot that lands near them is a wasted round. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate e28f0289 — Abandon the elite family's tight-deck-gap/no-wedge/floor-thickness trait: push deck_gap near its max for maximum rotor/deck clearance, tilt the battery near its max to cut frontal area, and raise plate_thickness_scale well above the floor for a stiffer core, while holding sweep at stock and arms moderate so none of these three untested dimensions gets confounded with a sweep or mass penalty.flew at 6.840 Wh/km
candidate 197c2380 — Compact stiff-arm storm specialist replacing the failed short-arm attempt: arm_length_scale raised from the failed 0.78 to 1.2 (within the tip-clearance-safe range the elites themselves use) while keeping the fat, thick, low-narrowing arms and thicker plates that trade mass for storm stiffness the elite family has abandoned.flew at 7.025 Wh/km
candidate 3844ac93 — Wide-stance crosswind/storm pivot replacing the failed extreme-sweep attempt: sweep deltas trimmed from 11.6/14 deg to a safer 6.6/8 deg past stock and plate_length/width_scale pushed to 1.10/1.15 (well beyond the ~0.1-per-5-deg rule) to keep the tongue bolts seated on the main plate.flew at 6.757 Wh/km
candidate 87fd3524 — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Abandon the elite family's max-arm-length/thin-everything trait entirely: shrink to near-minimum arm length for higher disk loading but restore arm width/waist/thickness toward the middle of the range for real structural stiffness, testing whether a compact stiff core beats the plateaued long-thin-arm minimalism on storm without paying its usual mass tax.
candidate a8ab6930 — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — Abandon the elite family's stock-sweep constraint: push both sweeps far beyond stock for a genuinely wide stance (unlike prior failed wide-stance attempts that piled on thick arms), while keeping arms thin/light for low drag/mass and raising plate_length/width_scale well past the web-crush floor so the tongue bolts and webs stay safely seated, isolating stance-width benefit from the mass penalty t

1704aea48de9

6.274 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	4.00
crosswind	3.86
gusty_light	3.70
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.82

ba61fc4b63fb

6.286 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.31
cold_headwind	4.01
crosswind	3.87
gusty_light	3.71
hot_thin	3.53
storm	4.82

cc237e7244c5

6.318 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.33
cold_headwind	4.04
crosswind	3.88
gusty_light	3.72
hot_thin	3.55
storm	4.85

ff46e60afeaa

6.333 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.33
cold_headwind	4.06
crosswind	3.89
gusty_light	3.73
hot_thin	3.55
storm	4.86

ad77afd2152e

6.340 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.34
cold_headwind	4.06
crosswind	3.89
gusty_light	3.73
hot_thin	3.55
storm	4.87

45484fc05b8f

6.350 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.34
cold_headwind	4.06
crosswind	3.90
gusty_light	3.74
hot_thin	3.56
storm	4.87

b62c94c67395

6.370 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.34
cold_headwind	4.08
crosswind	3.92
gusty_light	3.75
hot_thin	3.57
storm	4.89

1989cce8f069

6.380 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.35
cold_headwind	4.09
crosswind	3.92
gusty_light	3.76
hot_thin	3.58
storm	4.90

89860fd49516

6.512 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.41
cold_headwind	4.19
crosswind	4.00
gusty_light	3.83
hot_thin	3.64
storm	5.00

3844ac93fc4c

6.757 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.54
cold_headwind	4.34
crosswind	4.15
gusty_light	3.97
hot_thin	3.78
storm	5.19

e28f02892326

6.840 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.60
cold_headwind	4.38
crosswind	4.21
gusty_light	4.02
hot_thin	3.84
storm	5.25

197c23808897

7.025 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.67
cold_headwind	4.52
crosswind	4.32
gusty_light	4.13
hot_thin	3.92
storm	5.40

f580c8168a5f

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

75753b64d8cc

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

96f27774bf9c

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

8c3f49668738

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

generation 12

inputs

✦ claude designer · scheduled round · 3 design(s) injected, 2 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	10
random immigrants	1

mutation σ 0.125 of gene range
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 12 · scheduled round · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.75..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.55..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.004..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.7..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412, g9 6.291, g10 6.291, g11 6.274 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 2 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.274 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3072, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.8, "rear_sweep_deg": 39.3318, "plate_length_scale": 0.97, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.3, "cold_headwind": 4.0, "crosswind": 3.86, "gusty_light": 3.7, "hot_thin": 3.52, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.286 Wh/km-agg, frame 92 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2981, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5858, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.4578, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.2882, "plate_length_scale": 0.9697, "plate_width_scale": 0.9972, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1202} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.31, "cold_headwind": 4.01, "crosswind": 3.87, "gusty_light": 3.71, "hot_thin": 3.53, "storm": 4.82}
fitness 6.291 Wh/km-agg, frame 93 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3, "arm_width_scale": 0.76, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.8, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.3, "plate_length_scale": 0.97, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.026, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.75, "material": 0.05} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.31, "cold_headwind": 4.02, "crosswind": 3.87, "gusty_light": 3.71, "hot_thin": 3.53, "storm": 4.83}
fitness 6.308 Wh/km-agg, frame 94 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.264, "arm_width_scale": 0.8556, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.9039, "rear_sweep_deg": 35.9787, "plate_length_scale": 0.9731, "plate_width_scale": 0.9864, "deck_gap": 0.0262, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7368, "material": 0.051} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.32, "cold_headwind": 4.03, "crosswind": 3.88, "gusty_light": 3.72, "hot_thin": 3.54, "storm": 4.84}
fitness 6.308 Wh/km-agg, frame 93 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.3096, "arm_width_scale": 0.7559, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 35.4827, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.5954, "plate_length_scale": 0.9803, "plate_width_scale": 0.9817, "deck_gap": 0.025, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7568, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.32, "cold_headwind": 4.03, "crosswind": 3.88, "gusty_light": 3.72, "hot_thin": 3.54, "storm": 4.84}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g0 `59b9a52c` fitness 7.127 Wh/km-agg — was: Compact, wide, stiff-armed storm-hardened design with a modest sweep shift and generous deck_gap/plate scale margin to clear the prior rotor-to-deck failure.
- g0 `7792e425` fitness 6.886 Wh/km-agg — was: Long low-disk-loading arms at exact stock sweep with a safely-oversized plate footprint and carbon construction, targeting hot_thin efficiency without touching the plate-web failure zone.
- g0 `89ffb906` fitness 8.479 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-hardened stiff bruiser: wide thick arms, long wheelbase and thick carbon plates trade mass for structural robustness, targeting the storm scenario that dominates worst-case fitness.
- g0 `9be55419` fitness 7.598 Wh/km-agg — was: Heavy-duty ASA build with thick plates and wide arms near stock sweep for maximum stiffness/durability robustness in storm gusts, accepting a mass penalty.
- g0 `9f8cb660` fitness 6.908 Wh/km-agg — was: Narrow low-drag arms with a tilted battery to cut frontal area for cold_headwind/crosswind, keeping sweep change modest and deck_gap raised for safety margin.
- g3 `4ac62300` fitness 7.026 Wh/km-agg — was: Near-stock sweep (small deltas, clear of the tongue-collision minimum) with plate scales pushed well above the 0.95 web-crush threshold and a thicker printed PLA+ build to test a tougher, mass-tolerant alternative to carbon.
- g3 `a76a6566` fitness 6.705 Wh/km-agg — was: Wider front/rear sweep for a broader stance to help crosswind/storm stability, paired with generously enlarged (not merely stock) plate scales and deck_gap to safely clear the tongue-bolt and web-crush failures seen at extreme sweep.
- g3 `edbeb491` fitness 6.977 Wh/km-agg — was: Moderate-stiffness storm specialist: wider/thicker arms with less waist-narrowing and tough PA12-CF material plus generous deck_gap, betting that structural robustness (not raw mass-adding bulk like earlier failed 'storm-hardened' attempts) trims the worst-case storm penalty.
- g6 `0744daaf` fitness 6.943 Wh/km-agg — was: Wide-stance crosswind/storm specialist that pushes both sweeps ~6-7 deg past stock for a broader footprint, with plate_length/width_scale raised well past 1.0 (per the ~0.1-per-5-deg rule) to keep the tongue bolts seated and the plate webs thick.
- g6 `7b8317ed` fitness 7.262 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-stiffness specialist: a moderately wider stance (5 deg beyond stock both sweeps, plate scales raised per the sweep-deviation rule) with less waist-narrowing and thicker arms/plates than the elites for gust stiffness, while staying on lightweight carbon to avoid the mass penalty that sank earlier 'storm bruiser' attempts.
- g6 `ed5a193d` fitness 7.377 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-hardened stiff-arm design with arm_length_scale raised to 1.20 (vs the failed 0.88) to restore rotor tip clearance at a near-stock sweep, plus generous plate margins to guard the tongue-bolt/web-crush zones.
- g9 `01f642b6` fitness 6.523 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate the effect of a genuinely wide stance (front/rear sweep pushed well past stock) from the thick-arm mass penalty that sank earlier wide-stance attempts, by pairing it with thin floor-waist arms and plate scales raised generously to keep the tongue bolts and webs safely clear.
- g9 `2ab37da5` fitness 6.429 Wh/km-agg — was: Replaces the failed vector by raising deck_gap well past the elite range (0.034 vs 0.028) and restoring a stiffer plate_thickness_scale (1.1 vs the failed 0.9) to push the rotor disk clear of the deck/battery stack while keeping near-stock sweeps and carbon construction.
- g9 `8d9fd4a0` fitness 6.291 Wh/km-agg — was: Push arm_length_scale near its max (lowers disk loading) with thin low-drag arms and deliberately cut plate_thickness_scale to 0.75 (below any elite) to shed mass for hot_thin/crosswind, keeping sweep essentially at stock so plate scales need no compensation.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 6, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 9, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 10, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 2, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 7, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 6, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

Propose exactly 3 NEW genome vectors that are meaningfully DIFFERENT from the elites and from each other — design hypotheses, not small perturbations. Build on what the trajectory and your earlier proposals' outcomes show worked; avoid repeating what failed. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate af149969 — Isolate the untested battery_wedge_deg dimension (all elites sit at 0.0) by tilting the battery 12 deg to cut frontal area for cold_headwind/crosswind, otherwise cloning the elite recipe's proven arm/plate/material values exactly.flew at 6.355 Wh/km
candidate ddf19b53 — Re-test extreme arm_length_scale (1.35 max, lower disk loading) at stock sweep, this time with plate_length/width_scale raised to 1.00/1.03 (above the elite's barely-passing 0.97/1.00) to keep the tongue-bolt web safely above the 1.90mm stock/80% floor.flew at 6.311 Wh/km
candidate 17da73c8 — Re-test the raised deck_gap (0.036, well past the 0.023 FC-stack minimum) for extra rotor/deck clearance margin, again pairing stock sweep with plate_length/width_scale at 1.00/1.03 to avoid the web-crush failure that killed the prior attempt at 0.96/0.96.flew at 6.333 Wh/km
candidate a2cca76f — rejected pre-flight (plate web too thin (plate_main 1.25 mm, stock 1.90 mm)) — Push arm_length_scale to its true maximum (1.35, beyond any elite's ~1.30) to further lower disk loading and hover power, while keeping arms at floor width/waist/thickness, sweeps at exact stock (zero plate-scale compensation needed), and floor plate thickness/carbon to stay in the proven low-mass recipe.
candidate 7bc9fa75 — rejected pre-flight (plate web too thin (plate_main 1.25 mm, stock 1.90 mm)) — Isolate deck_gap as a storm-clearance lever by raising it to 0.036 (well past the elite ~0.026 and the FC-stack minimum) while holding plate_thickness_scale at the floor and sweeps at exact stock, unlike the earlier failed deck_gap attempt that confounded the effect with added plate mass.

1704aea48de9

6.274 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	4.00
crosswind	3.86
gusty_light	3.70
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.82

ba61fc4b63fb

6.286 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.31
cold_headwind	4.01
crosswind	3.87
gusty_light	3.71
hot_thin	3.53
storm	4.82

b0b7ac5673d3

6.308 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.32
cold_headwind	4.03
crosswind	3.88
gusty_light	3.72
hot_thin	3.54
storm	4.84

ddf19b536a16

6.311 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.31
cold_headwind	4.04
crosswind	3.88
gusty_light	3.72
hot_thin	3.54
storm	4.84

518308dd763e

6.311 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.32
cold_headwind	4.03
crosswind	3.88
gusty_light	3.72
hot_thin	3.54
storm	4.84

17da73c894cb

6.333 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.32
cold_headwind	4.05
crosswind	3.90
gusty_light	3.73
hot_thin	3.55
storm	4.86

1b84d46a56fc

6.346 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.33
cold_headwind	4.06
crosswind	3.90
gusty_light	3.74
hot_thin	3.56
storm	4.87

af1499695456

6.355 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.34
cold_headwind	4.08
crosswind	3.91
gusty_light	3.74
hot_thin	3.56
storm	4.88

3007a946fb33

6.458 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.39
cold_headwind	4.14
crosswind	3.97
gusty_light	3.80
hot_thin	3.61
storm	4.96

6a0308f66ca3

6.497 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.40
cold_headwind	4.18
crosswind	3.99
gusty_light	3.82
hot_thin	3.63
storm	4.99

e5336935405c

6.771 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.55
cold_headwind	4.34
crosswind	4.18
gusty_light	3.98
hot_thin	3.79
storm	5.20

65e6a5f0f3b8

7.423 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.91
cold_headwind	4.76
crosswind	4.55
gusty_light	4.36
hot_thin	4.16
storm	5.70

81b319d910b1

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

4e477467edbf

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

422a660d16fa

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

638bd2f1c787

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)

generation 11

1704aea48de9

6.274 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.30
cold_headwind	4.00
crosswind	3.86
gusty_light	3.70
hot_thin	3.52
storm	4.82

ba61fc4b63fb

6.286 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.31
cold_headwind	4.01
crosswind	3.87
gusty_light	3.71
hot_thin	3.53
storm	4.82

8d9fd4a01c9a

6.291 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.31
cold_headwind	4.02
crosswind	3.87
gusty_light	3.71
hot_thin	3.53
storm	4.83

423a5b75b462

6.308 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.32
cold_headwind	4.03
crosswind	3.88
gusty_light	3.72
hot_thin	3.54
storm	4.84

dfc78b499744

6.366 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.34
cold_headwind	4.07
crosswind	3.91
gusty_light	3.75
hot_thin	3.57
storm	4.89

e0575966e577

6.406 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.37
cold_headwind	4.09
crosswind	3.94
gusty_light	3.77
hot_thin	3.59
storm	4.92

b7770d597f13

6.415 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.40
cold_headwind	4.07
crosswind	3.93
gusty_light	3.78
hot_thin	3.62
storm	4.92

b1d5fcb24f99

6.533 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	4.17
crosswind	4.03
gusty_light	3.85
hot_thin	3.67
storm	5.01

fc2c7ef36dda

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)

5fa016e60352

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

7c7bb013dfe2

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

ab38d7aba00d

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)

9d5c4afef43d

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

6a49f495e1e3

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

3d15d3b4bd87

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

8f0cd6f3c5bc

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)

generation 10

8d9fd4a01c9a

6.291 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.31
cold_headwind	4.02
crosswind	3.87
gusty_light	3.71
hot_thin	3.53
storm	4.83

423a5b75b462

6.308 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.32
cold_headwind	4.03
crosswind	3.88
gusty_light	3.72
hot_thin	3.54
storm	4.84

a0a25432bc7e

6.308 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.32
cold_headwind	4.03
crosswind	3.88
gusty_light	3.72
hot_thin	3.54
storm	4.84

b11bd9e31fc9

6.351 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.33
cold_headwind	4.07
crosswind	3.90
gusty_light	3.74
hot_thin	3.56
storm	4.88

44ef779fcdde

6.352 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.33
cold_headwind	4.07
crosswind	3.90
gusty_light	3.74
hot_thin	3.56
storm	4.88

17e316010361

6.372 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.38
cold_headwind	4.04
crosswind	3.91
gusty_light	3.76
hot_thin	3.60
storm	4.89

20e595a9b3bb

6.387 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.38
cold_headwind	4.05
crosswind	3.92
gusty_light	3.77
hot_thin	3.60
storm	4.90

12db578f6d9a

6.387 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.38
cold_headwind	4.05
crosswind	3.92
gusty_light	3.77
hot_thin	3.61
storm	4.90

f7f19e696159

6.427 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.39
cold_headwind	4.09
crosswind	3.95
gusty_light	3.79
hot_thin	3.61
storm	4.93

90910ad23a0b

6.494 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.42
cold_headwind	4.14
crosswind	4.00
gusty_light	3.83
hot_thin	3.65
storm	4.98

7cde9c33ec87

6.513 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.42
cold_headwind	4.16
crosswind	4.01
gusty_light	3.83
hot_thin	3.65
storm	5.00

1d6ed7910f85

6.616 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.47
cold_headwind	4.24
crosswind	4.06
gusty_light	3.89
hot_thin	3.70
storm	5.08

4f00eb4dd7f0

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)

0e5d846ccfa1

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.23
cold_headwind	3.89
crosswind	3.76
gusty_light	3.61
hot_thin	3.44
storm	4.69

fd317283218c

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.26
cold_headwind	3.95
crosswind	3.81
gusty_light	3.65
hot_thin	3.47
storm	4.75

4a2bcbc84f7a

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

generation 9

inputs

✦ claude designer · scheduled round · 3 design(s) injected, 1 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	11

mutation σ 0.137 of gene range
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 9 · scheduled round · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.75..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.55..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.004..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.7..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466, g6 6.412, g7 6.412, g8 6.412 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 2 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.412 Wh/km-agg, frame 108 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.0121, "arm_width_scale": 0.8495, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.3446, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.576, "plate_length_scale": 0.9653, "plate_width_scale": 1.0537, "deck_gap": 0.0302, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.3574, "material": 0.1089} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.39, "cold_headwind": 4.07, "crosswind": 3.94, "gusty_light": 3.78, "hot_thin": 3.62, "storm": 4.92}
fitness 6.454 Wh/km-agg, frame 107 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.1836, "arm_width_scale": 0.7548, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5504, "arm_thickness": 0.0041, "front_sweep_deg": 31.4905, "rear_sweep_deg": 34.0, "plate_length_scale": 1.0706, "plate_width_scale": 1.0587, "deck_gap": 0.0312, "battery_wedge_deg": 1.8637, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.057, "material": 0.0648} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.4, "cold_headwind": 4.11, "crosswind": 3.97, "gusty_light": 3.8, "hot_thin": 3.63, "storm": 4.95}
fitness 6.461 Wh/km-agg, frame 107 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.1955, "arm_width_scale": 0.8684, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5523, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.2426, "rear_sweep_deg": 35.7588, "plate_length_scale": 1.1303, "plate_width_scale": 1.0585, "deck_gap": 0.0301, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.1364, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.9624, "material": 0.0385} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.4, "cold_headwind": 4.12, "crosswind": 3.97, "gusty_light": 3.81, "hot_thin": 3.63, "storm": 4.96}
fitness 6.466 Wh/km-agg, frame 109 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.1802, "arm_width_scale": 0.8568, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.0041, "front_sweep_deg": 31.481, "rear_sweep_deg": 34.9638, "plate_length_scale": 1.0686, "plate_width_scale": 1.0587, "deck_gap": 0.0302, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.0569, "material": 0.0659} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.41, "cold_headwind": 4.12, "crosswind": 3.98, "gusty_light": 3.81, "hot_thin": 3.63, "storm": 4.96}
fitness 6.478 Wh/km-agg, frame 113 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.0278, "arm_width_scale": 0.8776, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.3641, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.5706, "plate_length_scale": 0.9759, "plate_width_scale": 1.0538, "deck_gap": 0.0328, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.4402, "material": 0.0976} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.42, "cold_headwind": 4.11, "crosswind": 3.98, "gusty_light": 3.82, "hot_thin": 3.65, "storm": 4.97}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g0 `59b9a52c` fitness 7.127 Wh/km-agg — was: Compact, wide, stiff-armed storm-hardened design with a modest sweep shift and generous deck_gap/plate scale margin to clear the prior rotor-to-deck failure.
- g0 `7792e425` fitness 6.886 Wh/km-agg — was: Long low-disk-loading arms at exact stock sweep with a safely-oversized plate footprint and carbon construction, targeting hot_thin efficiency without touching the plate-web failure zone.
- g0 `89ffb906` fitness 8.479 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-hardened stiff bruiser: wide thick arms, long wheelbase and thick carbon plates trade mass for structural robustness, targeting the storm scenario that dominates worst-case fitness.
- g0 `9be55419` fitness 7.598 Wh/km-agg — was: Heavy-duty ASA build with thick plates and wide arms near stock sweep for maximum stiffness/durability robustness in storm gusts, accepting a mass penalty.
- g0 `9f8cb660` fitness 6.908 Wh/km-agg — was: Narrow low-drag arms with a tilted battery to cut frontal area for cold_headwind/crosswind, keeping sweep change modest and deck_gap raised for safety margin.
- g3 `4ac62300` fitness 7.026 Wh/km-agg — was: Near-stock sweep (small deltas, clear of the tongue-collision minimum) with plate scales pushed well above the 0.95 web-crush threshold and a thicker printed PLA+ build to test a tougher, mass-tolerant alternative to carbon.
- g3 `a76a6566` fitness 6.705 Wh/km-agg — was: Wider front/rear sweep for a broader stance to help crosswind/storm stability, paired with generously enlarged (not merely stock) plate scales and deck_gap to safely clear the tongue-bolt and web-crush failures seen at extreme sweep.
- g3 `edbeb491` fitness 6.977 Wh/km-agg — was: Moderate-stiffness storm specialist: wider/thicker arms with less waist-narrowing and tough PA12-CF material plus generous deck_gap, betting that structural robustness (not raw mass-adding bulk like earlier failed 'storm-hardened' attempts) trims the worst-case storm penalty.
- g6 `0744daaf` fitness 6.943 Wh/km-agg — was: Wide-stance crosswind/storm specialist that pushes both sweeps ~6-7 deg past stock for a broader footprint, with plate_length/width_scale raised well past 1.0 (per the ~0.1-per-5-deg rule) to keep the tongue bolts seated and the plate webs thick.
- g6 `7b8317ed` fitness 7.262 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-stiffness specialist: a moderately wider stance (5 deg beyond stock both sweeps, plate scales raised per the sweep-deviation rule) with less waist-narrowing and thicker arms/plates than the elites for gust stiffness, while staying on lightweight carbon to avoid the mass penalty that sank earlier 'storm bruiser' attempts.
- g6 `ed5a193d` fitness 7.377 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-hardened stiff-arm design with arm_length_scale raised to 1.20 (vs the failed 0.88) to restore rotor tip clearance at a near-stock sweep, plus generous plate margins to guard the tongue-bolt/web-crush zones.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 8, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 7, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 6, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 6, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

Propose exactly 3 NEW genome vectors that are meaningfully DIFFERENT from the elites and from each other — design hypotheses, not small perturbations. Build on what the trajectory and your earlier proposals' outcomes show worked; avoid repeating what failed. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 8d9fd4a0 — Push arm_length_scale near its max (lowers disk loading) with thin low-drag arms and deliberately cut plate_thickness_scale to 0.75 (below any elite) to shed mass for hot_thin/crosswind, keeping sweep essentially at stock so plate scales need no compensation.flew at 6.291 Wh/km
candidate 01f642b6 — Isolate the effect of a genuinely wide stance (front/rear sweep pushed well past stock) from the thick-arm mass penalty that sank earlier wide-stance attempts, by pairing it with thin floor-waist arms and plate scales raised generously to keep the tongue bolts and webs safely clear.flew at 6.523 Wh/km
candidate 2ab37da5 — Replaces the failed vector by raising deck_gap well past the elite range (0.034 vs 0.028) and restoring a stiffer plate_thickness_scale (1.1 vs the failed 0.9) to push the rotor disk clear of the deck/battery stack while keeping near-stock sweeps and carbon construction.flew at 6.429 Wh/km
candidate 6921b5fe — rejected pre-flight (rotor too close to deck/battery) — Test whether a tough printed material (PA12-CF) at the minimum viable plate thickness can match carbon's efficiency on a lean, near-stock-sweep frame, unlike prior bulky printed-material attempts that added unnecessary mass.

8d9fd4a01c9a

6.291 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.31
cold_headwind	4.02
crosswind	3.87
gusty_light	3.71
hot_thin	3.53
storm	4.83

12db578f6d9a

6.387 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.38
cold_headwind	4.05
crosswind	3.92
gusty_light	3.77
hot_thin	3.61
storm	4.90

056184de8923

6.412 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.39
cold_headwind	4.07
crosswind	3.94
gusty_light	3.78
hot_thin	3.62
storm	4.92

2ab37da5aded

6.429 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.39
cold_headwind	4.09
crosswind	3.95
gusty_light	3.79
hot_thin	3.62
storm	4.93

88460ed9a2e2

6.454 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.40
cold_headwind	4.11
crosswind	3.97
gusty_light	3.80
hot_thin	3.63
storm	4.95

5bf4af89c395

6.497 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.41
cold_headwind	4.16
crosswind	4.00
gusty_light	3.83
hot_thin	3.64
storm	4.99

0a44e521470e

6.517 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	4.15
crosswind	4.00
gusty_light	3.84
hot_thin	3.67
storm	5.00

01f642b698ee

6.523 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.43
cold_headwind	4.16
crosswind	4.01
gusty_light	3.84
hot_thin	3.66
storm	5.01

7c1296374769

6.579 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.47
cold_headwind	4.19
crosswind	4.04
gusty_light	3.87
hot_thin	3.70
storm	5.05

d5b7768c74ba

6.677 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.50
cold_headwind	4.28
crosswind	4.11
gusty_light	3.93
hot_thin	3.73
storm	5.13

9b1ad93e6ae7

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

1cb131f8dcd9

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.25
cold_headwind	3.95
crosswind	3.80
gusty_light	3.64
hot_thin	3.46
storm	4.74

f210f6970d00

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

d07e9eb4efa0

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.29
cold_headwind	4.01
crosswind	3.85
gusty_light	3.68
hot_thin	3.50
storm	4.80

f9975e637f95

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

c90e6c04d60b

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

generation 8

056184de8923

6.412 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.39
cold_headwind	4.07
crosswind	3.94
gusty_light	3.78
hot_thin	3.62
storm	4.92

88460ed9a2e2

6.454 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.40
cold_headwind	4.11
crosswind	3.97
gusty_light	3.80
hot_thin	3.63
storm	4.95

b3ee16482b7f

6.478 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.42
cold_headwind	4.11
crosswind	3.98
gusty_light	3.82
hot_thin	3.65
storm	4.97

a7d348b99940

6.483 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.41
cold_headwind	4.14
crosswind	3.99
gusty_light	3.82
hot_thin	3.64
storm	4.97

73a3de639945

6.491 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.42
cold_headwind	4.14
crosswind	4.00
gusty_light	3.83
hot_thin	3.64
storm	4.98

b39589cfab1f

6.495 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.43
cold_headwind	4.13
crosswind	3.99
gusty_light	3.83
hot_thin	3.66
storm	4.98

86c66adc78ab

6.503 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.41
cold_headwind	4.16
crosswind	4.01
gusty_light	3.83
hot_thin	3.64
storm	4.99

d54e044418d8

6.504 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.43
cold_headwind	4.14
crosswind	4.00
gusty_light	3.83
hot_thin	3.65
storm	4.99

7d41c5bf7fcb

6.510 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.43
cold_headwind	4.14
crosswind	4.00
gusty_light	3.84
hot_thin	3.66
storm	5.00

b547bba47781

6.528 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	4.16
crosswind	4.01
gusty_light	3.85
hot_thin	3.67
storm	5.01

b23f0b070efd

6.630 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.49
cold_headwind	4.24
crosswind	4.08
gusty_light	3.90
hot_thin	3.72
storm	5.09

f47a31a3f356

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

5598a12c0ccc

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

a673d06cc9f2

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

a7e5fcb66d8d

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

d39357c00a75

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

generation 7

056184de8923

6.412 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.39
cold_headwind	4.07
crosswind	3.94
gusty_light	3.78
hot_thin	3.62
storm	4.92

88460ed9a2e2

6.454 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.40
cold_headwind	4.11
crosswind	3.97
gusty_light	3.80
hot_thin	3.63
storm	4.95

d60afe7b910e

6.461 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.40
cold_headwind	4.12
crosswind	3.97
gusty_light	3.81
hot_thin	3.63
storm	4.96

81d8723d6e5f

6.483 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.41
cold_headwind	4.13
crosswind	3.99
gusty_light	3.82
hot_thin	3.64
storm	4.98

1168a75cc018

6.484 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.41
cold_headwind	4.14
crosswind	3.99
gusty_light	3.82
hot_thin	3.63
storm	4.98

3a014cf57ee0

6.490 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.42
cold_headwind	4.13
crosswind	4.00
gusty_light	3.82
hot_thin	3.65
storm	4.98

6efaa89a1475

6.491 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.42
cold_headwind	4.13
crosswind	3.98
gusty_light	3.83
hot_thin	3.65
storm	4.98

ab90f4d019fa

6.537 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	4.16
crosswind	4.02
gusty_light	3.85
hot_thin	3.67
storm	5.02

9d30a0e485e1

6.582 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.46
cold_headwind	4.20
crosswind	4.05
gusty_light	3.87
hot_thin	3.69
storm	5.05

7d332c7c589b

6.654 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.50
cold_headwind	4.26
crosswind	4.09
gusty_light	3.91
hot_thin	3.73
storm	5.11

3177bdcfbc1f

6.802 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.57
cold_headwind	4.35
crosswind	4.19
gusty_light	4.00
hot_thin	3.81
storm	5.22

558b1a7ddb64

∞ wh/km agg

arm resonance with rotor 1P

calm_warm	3.86
cold_headwind	4.73
crosswind	4.49
gusty_light	4.30
hot_thin	4.10
storm	5.63

b9cf335c58f1

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

11501a421b71

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

b2a0e07f4c1e

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

91a0d5bb94ed

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

generation 6

inputs

✦ claude designer · scheduled round · 3 design(s) injected, 2 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	11

mutation σ 0.150 of gene range
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 6 · scheduled round · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.75..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.55..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.004..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.7..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552, g3 6.547, g4 6.547, g5 6.466

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.466 Wh/km-agg, frame 109 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.1802, "arm_width_scale": 0.8568, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.0041, "front_sweep_deg": 31.481, "rear_sweep_deg": 34.9638, "plate_length_scale": 1.0686, "plate_width_scale": 1.0587, "deck_gap": 0.0302, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.0569, "material": 0.0659} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.41, "cold_headwind": 4.12, "crosswind": 3.98, "gusty_light": 3.81, "hot_thin": 3.63, "storm": 4.96}
fitness 6.528 Wh/km-agg, frame 114 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.1896, "arm_width_scale": 0.8692, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5522, "arm_thickness": 0.0043, "front_sweep_deg": 33.2424, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.0119, "plate_length_scale": 1.0688, "plate_width_scale": 1.0587, "deck_gap": 0.0301, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.1155, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.1004, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 4.16, "crosswind": 4.02, "gusty_light": 3.85, "hot_thin": 3.67, "storm": 5.01}
fitness 6.547 Wh/km-agg, frame 116 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.1896, "arm_width_scale": 0.8692, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5522, "arm_thickness": 0.0043, "front_sweep_deg": 31.7017, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.0119, "plate_length_scale": 1.0688, "plate_width_scale": 1.0587, "deck_gap": 0.0301, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.1155, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.1546, "material": 0.072} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 4.17, "crosswind": 4.03, "gusty_light": 3.86, "hot_thin": 3.67, "storm": 5.03}
fitness 6.547 Wh/km-agg, frame 112 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.1869, "arm_width_scale": 0.8514, "arm_waist_scale": 0.7119, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 32.5276, "rear_sweep_deg": 35.4614, "plate_length_scale": 1.0668, "plate_width_scale": 1.062, "deck_gap": 0.0294, "battery_wedge_deg": 4.7339, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.053, "material": 0.0792} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.45, "cold_headwind": 4.18, "crosswind": 4.03, "gusty_light": 3.86, "hot_thin": 3.68, "storm": 5.02}
fitness 6.552 Wh/km-agg, frame 116 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.1874, "arm_width_scale": 0.8442, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.0045, "front_sweep_deg": 31.4716, "rear_sweep_deg": 35.6322, "plate_length_scale": 1.067, "plate_width_scale": 1.0617, "deck_gap": 0.0302, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.0643, "material": 0.0716} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 4.18, "crosswind": 4.03, "gusty_light": 3.86, "hot_thin": 3.68, "storm": 5.03}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g0 `59b9a52c` fitness 7.127 Wh/km-agg — was: Compact, wide, stiff-armed storm-hardened design with a modest sweep shift and generous deck_gap/plate scale margin to clear the prior rotor-to-deck failure.
- g0 `7792e425` fitness 6.886 Wh/km-agg — was: Long low-disk-loading arms at exact stock sweep with a safely-oversized plate footprint and carbon construction, targeting hot_thin efficiency without touching the plate-web failure zone.
- g0 `89ffb906` fitness 8.479 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-hardened stiff bruiser: wide thick arms, long wheelbase and thick carbon plates trade mass for structural robustness, targeting the storm scenario that dominates worst-case fitness.
- g0 `9be55419` fitness 7.598 Wh/km-agg — was: Heavy-duty ASA build with thick plates and wide arms near stock sweep for maximum stiffness/durability robustness in storm gusts, accepting a mass penalty.
- g0 `9f8cb660` fitness 6.908 Wh/km-agg — was: Narrow low-drag arms with a tilted battery to cut frontal area for cold_headwind/crosswind, keeping sweep change modest and deck_gap raised for safety margin.
- g3 `4ac62300` fitness 7.026 Wh/km-agg — was: Near-stock sweep (small deltas, clear of the tongue-collision minimum) with plate scales pushed well above the 0.95 web-crush threshold and a thicker printed PLA+ build to test a tougher, mass-tolerant alternative to carbon.
- g3 `a76a6566` fitness 6.705 Wh/km-agg — was: Wider front/rear sweep for a broader stance to help crosswind/storm stability, paired with generously enlarged (not merely stock) plate scales and deck_gap to safely clear the tongue-bolt and web-crush failures seen at extreme sweep.
- g3 `edbeb491` fitness 6.977 Wh/km-agg — was: Moderate-stiffness storm specialist: wider/thicker arms with less waist-narrowing and tough PA12-CF material plus generous deck_gap, betting that structural robustness (not raw mass-adding bulk like earlier failed 'storm-hardened' attempts) trims the worst-case storm penalty.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 7, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 3, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

Propose exactly 3 NEW genome vectors that are meaningfully DIFFERENT from the elites and from each other — design hypotheses, not small perturbations. Build on what the trajectory and your earlier proposals' outcomes show worked; avoid repeating what failed. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 7b8317ed — Storm-stiffness specialist: a moderately wider stance (5 deg beyond stock both sweeps, plate scales raised per the sweep-deviation rule) with less waist-narrowing and thicker arms/plates than the elites for gust stiffness, while staying on lightweight carbon to avoid the mass penalty that sank earlier 'storm bruiser' attempts.flew at 7.262 Wh/km
candidate ed5a193d — Storm-hardened stiff-arm design with arm_length_scale raised to 1.20 (vs the failed 0.88) to restore rotor tip clearance at a near-stock sweep, plus generous plate margins to guard the tongue-bolt/web-crush zones.flew at 7.377 Wh/km
candidate 0744daaf — Wide-stance crosswind/storm specialist that pushes both sweeps ~6-7 deg past stock for a broader footprint, with plate_length/width_scale raised well past 1.0 (per the ~0.1-per-5-deg rule) to keep the tongue bolts seated and the plate webs thick.flew at 6.943 Wh/km
candidate 9a762f4b — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Compact minimal-mass frame: shortens the wheelbase and thins arm/plate stock well below the elite cluster to shed frame mass for hot_thin/cruise efficiency, betting that the elites' long-arm strategy has more mass to give up than disk-loading penalty to pay at stock sweep.
candidate 8e3389f7 — rejected pre-flight (plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)) — Low-drag headwind/crosswind specialist: minimum arm width and waist plus an aggressive near-max battery tilt at exactly stock sweep to cut frontal/cross-sectional area, targeting the wind-facing scenarios rather than mass.

056184de8923

6.412 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.39
cold_headwind	4.07
crosswind	3.94
gusty_light	3.78
hot_thin	3.62
storm	4.92

d60afe7b910e

6.461 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.40
cold_headwind	4.12
crosswind	3.97
gusty_light	3.81
hot_thin	3.63
storm	4.96

50e6dee87d3a

6.466 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.41
cold_headwind	4.12
crosswind	3.98
gusty_light	3.81
hot_thin	3.63
storm	4.96

0b455cc0f748

6.487 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.41
cold_headwind	4.14
crosswind	3.99
gusty_light	3.82
hot_thin	3.64
storm	4.98

a1df3773912d

6.487 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.42
cold_headwind	4.13
crosswind	3.99
gusty_light	3.82
hot_thin	3.64
storm	4.98

f9862e99b160

6.528 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	4.16
crosswind	4.02
gusty_light	3.85
hot_thin	3.67
storm	5.01

6d9a8f3e0bc1

6.539 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	4.17
crosswind	4.02
gusty_light	3.85
hot_thin	3.67
storm	5.02

1ae7f66cd948

6.586 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.47
cold_headwind	4.20
crosswind	4.05
gusty_light	3.88
hot_thin	3.70
storm	5.06

1bcf9c39a3df

6.631 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.50
cold_headwind	4.23
crosswind	4.08
gusty_light	3.90
hot_thin	3.73
storm	5.09

a94a56bc9f09

6.788 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.57
cold_headwind	4.34
crosswind	4.18
gusty_light	3.99
hot_thin	3.81
storm	5.21

939d4b0bcd16

6.881 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.62
cold_headwind	4.41
crosswind	4.24
gusty_light	4.05
hot_thin	3.86
storm	5.28

0744daafc6e2

6.943 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.64
cold_headwind	4.46
crosswind	4.27
gusty_light	4.08
hot_thin	3.88
storm	5.33

7b8317ed444b

7.262 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.80
cold_headwind	4.67
crosswind	4.46
gusty_light	4.26
hot_thin	4.05
storm	5.58

ed5a193d02ea

7.377 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.86
cold_headwind	4.75
crosswind	4.54
gusty_light	4.33
hot_thin	4.11
storm	5.67

bd9d3434a36d

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

b3151e8e8a36

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

generation 5

50e6dee87d3a

6.466 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.41
cold_headwind	4.12
crosswind	3.98
gusty_light	3.81
hot_thin	3.63
storm	4.96

f9862e99b160

6.528 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	4.16
crosswind	4.02
gusty_light	3.85
hot_thin	3.67
storm	5.01

89bafd954020

6.547 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	4.17
crosswind	4.03
gusty_light	3.86
hot_thin	3.67
storm	5.03

c9cf7c11f59f

6.547 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.45
cold_headwind	4.18
crosswind	4.03
gusty_light	3.86
hot_thin	3.68
storm	5.02

6a3d68fd906b

6.568 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.46
cold_headwind	4.19
crosswind	4.04
gusty_light	3.87
hot_thin	3.69
storm	5.04

71f9b10676b2

6.595 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.47
cold_headwind	4.20
crosswind	4.05
gusty_light	3.88
hot_thin	3.70
storm	5.06

203a5f646386

6.635 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.49
cold_headwind	4.23
crosswind	4.09
gusty_light	3.91
hot_thin	3.72
storm	5.09

b324108bd3fb

6.637 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.49
cold_headwind	4.23
crosswind	4.09
gusty_light	3.91
hot_thin	3.72
storm	5.09

d3770c40a877

6.692 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.50
cold_headwind	4.30
crosswind	4.12
gusty_light	3.93
hot_thin	3.74
storm	5.14

9f193ade7d89

6.811 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.59
cold_headwind	4.36
crosswind	4.19
gusty_light	4.01
hot_thin	3.82
storm	5.23

412f5906d4ae

6.873 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.62
cold_headwind	4.39
crosswind	4.23
gusty_light	4.05
hot_thin	3.86
storm	5.27

6c59f94f5dd5

7.126 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.70
cold_headwind	4.65
crosswind	4.39
gusty_light	4.17
hot_thin	3.94
storm	5.47

5fdc8f9feb1b

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

78e246731fc8

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

e69646c004a3

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

f97426ea97fc

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)

generation 4

89bafd954020

6.547 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	4.17
crosswind	4.03
gusty_light	3.86
hot_thin	3.67
storm	5.03

c9cf7c11f59f

6.547 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.45
cold_headwind	4.18
crosswind	4.03
gusty_light	3.86
hot_thin	3.68
storm	5.02

1e1a58d2ae26

6.552 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	4.18
crosswind	4.03
gusty_light	3.86
hot_thin	3.68
storm	5.03

305d09e58ec7

6.627 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.46
cold_headwind	4.29
crosswind	4.09
gusty_light	3.90
hot_thin	3.68
storm	5.09

838da14e4706

6.654 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.50
cold_headwind	4.25
crosswind	4.09
gusty_light	3.92
hot_thin	3.73
storm	5.11

b135fda4746b

6.800 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.58
cold_headwind	4.35
crosswind	4.18
gusty_light	4.00
hot_thin	3.81
storm	5.22

4217f90da111

6.855 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.57
cold_headwind	4.44
crosswind	4.22
gusty_light	4.02
hot_thin	3.81
storm	5.27

7d22b27cf9e4

7.139 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.70
cold_headwind	4.67
crosswind	4.40
gusty_light	4.18
hot_thin	3.94
storm	5.49

aa4dfe645fa0

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)

137d29b15ab2

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)

945c4e9c8052

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)

f40d394738b2

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

33f73a334e76

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

65a40445a59f

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

fc1469ad1abe

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

43a8c3b07b39

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

generation 3

inputs

✦ claude designer · scheduled round · 3 design(s) injected, 2 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	9
mutants (single parent)	2

mutation σ 0.164 of gene range
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 3 · scheduled round · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.75..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.55..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.004..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.7..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): g0 6.886, g1 6.807, g2 6.552

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 6.552 Wh/km-agg, frame 116 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.1874, "arm_width_scale": 0.8442, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.0045, "front_sweep_deg": 31.4716, "rear_sweep_deg": 35.6322, "plate_length_scale": 1.067, "plate_width_scale": 1.0617, "deck_gap": 0.0302, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.0643, "material": 0.0716} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 4.18, "crosswind": 4.03, "gusty_light": 3.86, "hot_thin": 3.68, "storm": 5.03}
fitness 6.719 Wh/km-agg, frame 114 g, pa12_cf: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.0948, "arm_width_scale": 0.7946, "arm_waist_scale": 0.8092, "arm_thickness": 0.0069, "front_sweep_deg": 34.3743, "rear_sweep_deg": 39.6449, "plate_length_scale": 1.066, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.0312, "battery_wedge_deg": 10.4674, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.0, "material": 0.288} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.5, "cold_headwind": 4.35, "crosswind": 4.15, "gusty_light": 3.95, "hot_thin": 3.73, "storm": 5.16}
fitness 6.790 Wh/km-agg, frame 130 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.2802, "arm_width_scale": 0.8799, "arm_waist_scale": 0.6032, "arm_thickness": 0.006, "front_sweep_deg": 31.6322, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.431, "plate_length_scale": 0.9426, "plate_width_scale": 0.9959, "deck_gap": 0.0299, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7085, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.55, "cold_headwind": 4.36, "crosswind": 4.18, "gusty_light": 3.99, "hot_thin": 3.79, "storm": 5.21}
fitness 6.807 Wh/km-agg, frame 132 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.35, "arm_width_scale": 0.8577, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5917, "arm_thickness": 0.006, "front_sweep_deg": 31.5277, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.3405, "plate_length_scale": 0.9431, "plate_width_scale": 0.996, "deck_gap": 0.0299, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0368, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.0069} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.56, "cold_headwind": 4.37, "crosswind": 4.2, "gusty_light": 4.0, "hot_thin": 3.8, "storm": 5.23}
fitness 6.828 Wh/km-agg, frame 137 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.1874, "arm_width_scale": 0.8442, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.006, "front_sweep_deg": 31.4716, "rear_sweep_deg": 35.6322, "plate_length_scale": 1.0498, "plate_width_scale": 0.9971, "deck_gap": 0.0302, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.0643, "material": 0.0716} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.59, "cold_headwind": 4.36, "crosswind": 4.21, "gusty_light": 4.02, "hot_thin": 3.83, "storm": 5.24}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g0 `59b9a52c` fitness 7.127 Wh/km-agg — was: Compact, wide, stiff-armed storm-hardened design with a modest sweep shift and generous deck_gap/plate scale margin to clear the prior rotor-to-deck failure.
- g0 `7792e425` fitness 6.886 Wh/km-agg — was: Long low-disk-loading arms at exact stock sweep with a safely-oversized plate footprint and carbon construction, targeting hot_thin efficiency without touching the plate-web failure zone.
- g0 `89ffb906` fitness 8.479 Wh/km-agg — was: Storm-hardened stiff bruiser: wide thick arms, long wheelbase and thick carbon plates trade mass for structural robustness, targeting the storm scenario that dominates worst-case fitness.
- g0 `9be55419` fitness 7.598 Wh/km-agg — was: Heavy-duty ASA build with thick plates and wide arms near stock sweep for maximum stiffness/durability robustness in storm gusts, accepting a mass penalty.
- g0 `9f8cb660` fitness 6.908 Wh/km-agg — was: Narrow low-drag arms with a tilted battery to cut frontal area for cold_headwind/crosswind, keeping sweep change modest and deck_gap raised for safety margin.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 1, "arm resonance with rotor 1P": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

Propose exactly 3 NEW genome vectors that are meaningfully DIFFERENT from the elites and from each other — design hypotheses, not small perturbations. Build on what the trajectory and your earlier proposals' outcomes show worked; avoid repeating what failed. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate edbeb491 — Moderate-stiffness storm specialist: wider/thicker arms with less waist-narrowing and tough PA12-CF material plus generous deck_gap, betting that structural robustness (not raw mass-adding bulk like earlier failed 'storm-hardened' attempts) trims the worst-case storm penalty.flew at 6.977 Wh/km
candidate a76a6566 — Wider front/rear sweep for a broader stance to help crosswind/storm stability, paired with generously enlarged (not merely stock) plate scales and deck_gap to safely clear the tongue-bolt and web-crush failures seen at extreme sweep.flew at 6.705 Wh/km
candidate 4ac62300 — Near-stock sweep (small deltas, clear of the tongue-collision minimum) with plate scales pushed well above the 0.95 web-crush threshold and a thicker printed PLA+ build to test a tougher, mass-tolerant alternative to carbon.flew at 7.026 Wh/km
candidate 738d04e5 — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — Sweep-diverged crosswind hypothesis: push rotor azimuth well past stock (front 40, rear 48) with plate scales raised ~0.15 per the coupling rule to protect the FC-stack webs, testing an unexplored rotor-placement regime for crosswind/storm gains.
candidate 03f8842c — rejected pre-flight (plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)) — Ultra-light short-wheelbase design: shrink arm length and deck_gap to their safe minimums with stock sweeps (avoiding the plate-web/tongue failure zone) and thinner plates, betting mass reduction beats the elites' 114-116 g on hot_thin.

c9cf7c11f59f

6.547 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.45
cold_headwind	4.18
crosswind	4.03
gusty_light	3.86
hot_thin	3.68
storm	5.02

1e1a58d2ae26

6.552 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	4.18
crosswind	4.03
gusty_light	3.86
hot_thin	3.68
storm	5.03

d3bc126ea7b7

6.687 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.53
cold_headwind	4.26
crosswind	4.12
gusty_light	3.94
hot_thin	3.76
storm	5.13

a76a6566ac11

6.705 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.53
cold_headwind	4.29
crosswind	4.12
gusty_light	3.95
hot_thin	3.76
storm	5.15

cb6b6c5540f9

6.719 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.50
cold_headwind	4.35
crosswind	4.15
gusty_light	3.95
hot_thin	3.73
storm	5.16

30f7b0f6b0b7

6.755 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.52
cold_headwind	4.38
crosswind	4.18
gusty_light	3.97
hot_thin	3.75
storm	5.19

edbeb4914449

6.977 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.63
cold_headwind	4.53
crosswind	4.30
gusty_light	4.09
hot_thin	3.87
storm	5.36

4ac6230067c7

7.026 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.66
cold_headwind	4.55
crosswind	4.34
gusty_light	4.12
hot_thin	3.90
storm	5.40

09309f9a3ffc

7.790 wh/km agg

calm_warm	4.04
cold_headwind	5.12
crosswind	4.77
gusty_light	4.54
hot_thin	4.30
storm	5.99

3edb9219bf87

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

c5f9522e79bb

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

7233d53a3e8b

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

bb0eed2bdfef

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

a7df2893e710

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

bf2e6f93d302

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.26
cold_headwind	3.98
crosswind	3.83
gusty_light	3.66
hot_thin	3.48
storm	4.77

a634b4cbe897

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)

generation 2

1e1a58d2ae26

6.552 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	4.18
crosswind	4.03
gusty_light	3.86
hot_thin	3.68
storm	5.03

cb6b6c5540f9

6.719 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.50
cold_headwind	4.35
crosswind	4.15
gusty_light	3.95
hot_thin	3.73
storm	5.16

4743fc24d9d8

6.790 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.55
cold_headwind	4.36
crosswind	4.18
gusty_light	3.99
hot_thin	3.79
storm	5.21

567a47539bb8

6.807 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.56
cold_headwind	4.37
crosswind	4.20
gusty_light	4.00
hot_thin	3.80
storm	5.23

8e06d4306a70

6.828 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.59
cold_headwind	4.36
crosswind	4.21
gusty_light	4.02
hot_thin	3.83
storm	5.24

f7529dac5308

6.868 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.61
cold_headwind	4.38
crosswind	4.23
gusty_light	4.04
hot_thin	3.85
storm	5.27

15c422327b08

7.622 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.95
cold_headwind	5.01
crosswind	4.67
gusty_light	4.45
hot_thin	4.20
storm	5.86

5ed287457f78

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

525912aa347b

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

18764ba12399

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

b24c2b7ec3dc

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

3acb6f67aff0

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

13deecb4fddf

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

018cf7cf45d5

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

0969790bc7ed

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

6c9aba1081db

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)

generation 1

567a47539bb8

6.807 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.56
cold_headwind	4.37
crosswind	4.20
gusty_light	4.00
hot_thin	3.80
storm	5.23

8e06d4306a70

6.828 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.59
cold_headwind	4.36
crosswind	4.21
gusty_light	4.02
hot_thin	3.83
storm	5.24

7792e42599f3

6.886 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.61
cold_headwind	4.41
crosswind	4.24
gusty_light	4.05
hot_thin	3.85
storm	5.29

155527aa42e6

6.901 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.63
cold_headwind	4.41
crosswind	4.25
gusty_light	4.06
hot_thin	3.87
storm	5.30

9f8cb660ef38

6.908 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.63
cold_headwind	4.42
crosswind	4.25
gusty_light	4.06
hot_thin	3.87
storm	5.30

74b3739c8c62

7.727 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.97
cold_headwind	5.10
crosswind	4.74
gusty_light	4.50
hot_thin	4.24
storm	5.95

0e87bd2659ae

7.765 wh/km agg

calm_warm	4.05
cold_headwind	5.03
crosswind	4.76
gusty_light	4.54
hot_thin	4.32
storm	5.97

147c162c7115

7.970 wh/km agg

calm_warm	4.16
cold_headwind	5.18
crosswind	4.88
gusty_light	4.66
hot_thin	4.43
storm	6.13

c7930fc5ffc6

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

3aa7d17fe4ff

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

8647cb40064a

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)

be7ac6212cf7

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)

debe542fc520

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

c7d45f84f4ce

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

4775089f5490

∞ wh/km agg

arm resonance with rotor 1P

calm_warm	3.78
cold_headwind	4.60
crosswind	4.43
gusty_light	4.23
hot_thin	4.03
storm	5.52

adb2a0016661

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

generation 0

inputs

✦ claude designer · opening round — gen-0 design hypotheses · 5 design(s) injected, 4 rejected pre-flight

seeds (baseline + random probes)	11
claude-designed	5

mutation σ 0.180 of gene range
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 0 · opening round — gen-0 design hypotheses · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

what claude was asked

You are the designer in an automated evolutionary study of 3D-printable quadcopter frames. The geometry is the real TBS Source One V6 7-inch DeadCat, morphed by a genome; the mission is 2 km north + 2 km south at 12 m/s through six adverse-weather scenarios; fitness = mean Wh/km across scenarios + 0.5 x worst scenario (LOWER IS BETTER). The platform (battery, 2806 motors, 7x4 props, electronics) is fixed; only the frame genome varies.

GENES (name: min..max — meaning):
- arm_length_scale: 0.75..1.35 — arm shaft stretch (wheelbase / disk loading)
- arm_width_scale: 0.75..1.4 — arm width at shaft ends (stiffness vs drag)
- arm_waist_scale: 0.55..1.3 — extra mid-shaft narrowing (drag vs stiffness)
- arm_thickness: 0.004..0.009 — arm plate thickness in meters
- front_sweep_deg: 30.0..52.0 — front arm azimuth from nose
- rear_sweep_deg: 34.0..62.0 — rear arm azimuth from tail
- plate_length_scale: 0.85..1.3 — deck plate stretch along flight axis
- plate_width_scale: 0.85..1.25 — deck plate stretch across
- deck_gap: 0.02..0.045 — standoff length in meters (stack space, prop-deck gap)
- battery_wedge_deg: 0.0..15.0 — battery tilt on the top plate (frontal area)
- plate_thickness_scale: 0.7..1.6 — x2 mm deck plates (mass vs stiffness)
- material: 0.0..0.999 — 0-0.17 carbon plate, 0.17-0.33 PA12-CF, 0.33-0.5 PET-CF, 0.5-0.67 PLA+, 0.67-0.83 PETG, 0.83-1 ASA

BEST-PER-GENERATION TRAJECTORY (Wh/km-agg): (no generations evaluated yet)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
(none yet -- this is generation 0: propose diverse OPENING design hypotheses that stake out different regions of the genome space)

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
(none yet)

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {}


SCENARIO NOTES: storm (8 m/s wind, severe gusts, rain) dominates worst-case; cold_headwind rewards low frontal drag; hot_thin (thin air) rewards low mass; crosswind rewards a small side profile.

Propose exactly 5 NEW genome vectors that are meaningfully DIFFERENT from the elites and from each other — design hypotheses, not small perturbations. Build on what the trajectory and your earlier proposals' outcomes show worked; avoid repeating what failed. Respect the hard constraints implied by the failure histogram. Known couplings: the deck gap must exceed 0.023 m for the FC stack; arm tongues collide when both sweeps sit at their minimums with wide arms; the tongue BOLTS must stay on the main plate -- sweeps far from stock (front 31.4, rear 36.0) need plate_length_scale/plate_width_scale to grow with them (rule of thumb: keep sweeps within ~6 deg of stock unless you also raise the plate scales by ~0.1 per extra 5 deg); the FC-stack holes stay PINNED while the plates scale, so plate scales below ~0.95 crush the material webs between holes and cutouts (min 80% of the stock web is enforced); and printed materials (anything but cf_plate) need plate_thickness_scale >= 0.8 (>= 1.6 mm plates).

Respond with a JSON object of the shape:
{"proposals": [{"rationale": "<one sentence>", "genes": {"arm_length_scale": <float>, "arm_width_scale": <float>, "arm_waist_scale": <float>, "arm_thickness": <float>, "front_sweep_deg": <float>, "rear_sweep_deg": <float>, "plate_length_scale": <float>, "plate_width_scale": <float>, "deck_gap": <float>, "battery_wedge_deg": <float>, "plate_thickness_scale": <float>, "material": <float>}}, ...]}

what it proposed

candidate 89ffb906 — Storm-hardened stiff bruiser: wide thick arms, long wheelbase and thick carbon plates trade mass for structural robustness, targeting the storm scenario that dominates worst-case fitness.flew at 8.479 Wh/km
candidate 7792e425 — Long low-disk-loading arms at exact stock sweep with a safely-oversized plate footprint and carbon construction, targeting hot_thin efficiency without touching the plate-web failure zone.flew at 6.886 Wh/km
candidate 59b9a52c — Compact, wide, stiff-armed storm-hardened design with a modest sweep shift and generous deck_gap/plate scale margin to clear the prior rotor-to-deck failure.flew at 7.127 Wh/km
candidate 9f8cb660 — Narrow low-drag arms with a tilted battery to cut frontal area for cold_headwind/crosswind, keeping sweep change modest and deck_gap raised for safety margin.flew at 6.908 Wh/km
candidate 9be55419 — Heavy-duty ASA build with thick plates and wide arms near stock sweep for maximum stiffness/durability robustness in storm gusts, accepting a mass penalty.flew at 7.598 Wh/km
candidate 0769309e — rejected pre-flight (plate web too thin (plate_main 1.25 mm, stock 1.90 mm)) — Low-drag speed racer: long slender waisted arms and minimal-frontal-area carbon-plate build at stock sweeps to hold bolt registration while chasing the lowest steady-cruise Wh/km.
candidate cc82d367 — rejected pre-flight (plate web too thin (plate_main 1.07 mm, stock 1.90 mm)) — Ultralight hot/thin-air specialist: short thin arms and PLA+ at the minimum viable plate thickness to cut absolute mass for low-density-air scenarios.
candidate afda73b2 — rejected pre-flight (rotor too close to deck/battery) — Wide-sweep compact X hypothesis: pushes both sweeps ~6-7 deg past stock for a tighter crosswind silhouette, growing the deck plates to protect the tongue bolts, printed in tough PA12-CF.
candidate a642e36d — rejected pre-flight (plate web too thin (plate_main 1.07 mm, stock 1.90 mm)) — Cold-headwind glider: near-minimum sweeps (kept just off the exact minimum to dodge tongue collision) with narrow waisted arms and a steep battery wedge to minimize frontal area into a headwind, printed PETG.

7792e42599f3

6.886 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.61
cold_headwind	4.41
crosswind	4.24
gusty_light	4.05
hot_thin	3.85
storm	5.29

9f8cb660ef38

6.908 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.63
cold_headwind	4.42
crosswind	4.25
gusty_light	4.06
hot_thin	3.87
storm	5.30

baac55fb3837

6.936 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.65
cold_headwind	4.42
crosswind	4.27
gusty_light	4.08
hot_thin	3.90
storm	5.32

59b9a52c15fa

7.127 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.73
cold_headwind	4.59
crosswind	4.39
gusty_light	4.18
hot_thin	3.98
storm	5.47

fb21f27a5a37

7.288 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.78
cold_headwind	4.75
crosswind	4.48
gusty_light	4.27
hot_thin	4.04
storm	5.60

9be55419299a

7.598 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.90
cold_headwind	5.00
crosswind	4.68
gusty_light	4.43
hot_thin	4.17
storm	5.85

ac6152897717

7.761 wh/km agg

calm_warm	4.05
cold_headwind	5.03
crosswind	4.76
gusty_light	4.54
hot_thin	4.31
storm	5.97

89ffb906b148

8.479 wh/km agg

calm_warm	4.42
cold_headwind	5.47
crosswind	5.21
gusty_light	4.96
hot_thin	4.72
storm	6.53

8ecbc7aa7d42

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

6d3cc3001311

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

bed953f57acd

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

7cbc2d5ef0dc

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

c49a7137ae88

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

8b125eb28127

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

c34eb7329dd8

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

14d6fcbb04f9

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

candidate details & parentage

click a model or its view candidate evolution button to open it full-screen: the full-kit model, its evolved components alone, a side-by-side with the baseline (the gen-0 winner) rotating in sync, the net change vs the baseline, the lineage trail (baseline + every ancestor ghosted), and a replay that steps generation by generation from the baseline to the candidate. view candidate performance replays the scored flights, one tab per weather scenario (champions and best-so-far setters only), and can slide in the baseline flying the same weather in sync (3D models load on demand when an overlay opens)

candidate 4553a646ccc2run champion

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

evolved:armsarms
Evolved part: the four arms — length, width, waist, thickness and sweep genes reshape them.deck plates + standoffsdeck plates + standoffs
Evolved part: the stacked deck plates and standoffs — plate size, thickness and deck gap genes reshape them.fixed kit:batterybattery
Fixed kit, identical on every candidate — drawn in the 3D model for context only; evolution never changes it.FC/ESC stackFC/ESC stack
Fixed kit, identical on every candidate — drawn in the 3D model for context only; evolution never changes it.wiring/XT60wiring/XT60
Fixed kit, identical on every candidate — drawn in the 3D model for context only; evolution never changes it.motorsmotors
Fixed kit, identical on every candidate — drawn in the 3D model for context only; evolution never changes it.prop disksprop disks
Fixed kit, identical on every candidate — drawn in the 3D model for context only; evolution never changes it.

metric	value
energy score	5.763 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.3% better
scenario mean	3.553 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.421 Wh/km
frame mass	55.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 79 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the two 5.767-5.768 co-leaders, this candidate bets that combining their independently-good arm-waist and sweep traits, rather than mutating either alone, can compound into a genuinely lower-drag hybrid.

methodCrossed the two leading parents, pulling in a narrower arm waist and wider arm from the second parent, trimming the material blend, and opening rear sweep slightly.

resultFitness dropped to 5.763, beating both parents and becoming the NEW WINNER for the generation, edging out sibling candidate 222e0e2cc59f's 5.767. Every scenario improved marginally, suggesting the narrower waist combined with a wider arm genuinely reduces flex-related losses without adding drag. Worth testing next: push arm waist narrower still, toward x0.40, to see if the trend continues before it becomes a structural liability.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.056	129.8	25.1°
cold_headwind	3.648	155.0	37.2°
crosswind	3.526	149.8	32.3°
gusty_light	3.405	144.7	31.6°
hot_thin	3.260	138.5	27.0°
storm	4.421	187.8	29.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.42
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×0.98
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.2°
rear sweep	44.3°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	29.8 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a47fba69d402

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.764 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.3% better
scenario mean	3.553 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.421 Wh/km
frame mass	55.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 79 via crossover

hypothesisSame top-two cross as the generation's eventual winner (81837e8357bb x bf7d9ddf87f6), but this pairing bets on a more conservative blend that stays closer to the average of both parents rather than pulling hard toward one parent's waist and sweep values.

methodGenes are near-identical to the parent average — arm waist, width, and plate dimensions barely shift from the midpoint of both parents.

resultFitness landed at 5.764, an improvement over both individual parents but not quite matching sibling candidate 4553a646ccc2's 5.763, so it did not become the new best-so-far. The same parent pair can clearly yield multiple near-equally-good crossovers depending on which parent's traits dominate the blend. Worth testing next: nudge this variant's arm waist toward the narrower value from 4553a646ccc2 to see if it closes the small remaining gap.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.059	130.0	25.1°
cold_headwind	3.647	154.9	37.1°
crosswind	3.525	149.8	32.3°
gusty_light	3.405	144.7	31.5°
hot_thin	3.262	138.6	26.9°
storm	4.421	187.8	29.0°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.46
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×0.98
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.2°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.93
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	29.7 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 222e0e2cc59fnew best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.767 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.3% better
scenario mean	3.555 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.424 Wh/km
frame mass	55.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 79 via pivot

hypothesisWith bf7d9ddf87f6 already matching the incumbent best, this pivot is a fine-tuning bet — barely touch the genes and see if noise-level adjustments to waist and battery wedge can eke out a marginal improvement rather than attempt a bold redesign.

methodGenes are essentially unchanged from the parent — arm waist and battery wedge shifted by only fractions of a percent/degree, everything else held constant.

resultFitness came in at 5.767, edging out the prior best-so-far and becoming the NEW WINNER, if only by a hair. This suggests the design is sitting right at a local minimum where further gains come from micro-tuning rather than structural changes. Worth testing next: sweep battery wedge across 1.4-1.8° around this point to map the local gradient more precisely.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.058	129.9	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.651	155.1	37.2°
crosswind	3.526	149.8	32.4°
gusty_light	3.407	144.7	31.6°
hot_thin	3.262	138.6	27.0°
storm	4.424	188.0	29.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.77
arm width	×0.88
arm waist	×0.43
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.8°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	31.4 mm
battery wedge	1.6°
plate thickness	×0.60
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate faeb6f8edb27new best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.767 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.3% better
scenario mean	3.555 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.423 Wh/km
frame mass	55.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 77 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing a near-leader parent with a mid-pack one, betting that a near-identical recombination would at minimum hold the leader's line and possibly edge slightly ahead.

methodThe recombination made almost no substantive change, closely restating the stronger parent's design.

resultNEW WINNER — ties 81837e8357bb exactly at 5.767 with an identical per-scenario breakdown, despite reaching it through visibly different gene values (different arm waist, tip thickness, plate width, and deck gap). That two structurally distinct designs land on the same fitness suggests the population is now sitting on a wide, flat optimum rather than a narrow peak. Worth testing next: run a deliberate single-gene sweep (e.g., deck gap alone) around this plateau to map how wide it actually is and find the true floor.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.062	130.1	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.651	155.1	37.1°
crosswind	3.525	149.8	32.2°
gusty_light	3.407	144.7	31.5°
hot_thin	3.264	138.7	27.0°
storm	4.423	187.9	29.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.44
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.3°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.93
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	31.5 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 81837e8357bbnew best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.767 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.2% better
scenario mean	3.556 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.424 Wh/km
frame mass	55.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 77 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents were already sitting right at the performance plateau (one essentially tied with the running best), so the bet was that combining a tighter deck spacing with a slightly leaner material mix could shave a sliver more off an already near-optimal frame.

methodDeck gap tightened by about 1.7 mm, tip section thinned by 2%, material mix shifted leaner, and plate widened by roughly 1%.

resultNEW WINNER — edges past the prior best-so-far by a hair (5.767 vs 5.768), with per-scenario numbers essentially flat except a touch better in storm. The tighter deck gap and leaner material appear to be a genuine, if marginal, improvement rather than noise. Worth testing next: push the deck gap tighter still, or isolate the material change alone to see which knob is actually doing the work.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.060	130.0	25.1°
cold_headwind	3.649	155.0	37.1°
crosswind	3.528	149.9	32.3°
gusty_light	3.408	144.8	31.5°
hot_thin	3.264	138.7	27.0°
storm	4.424	187.9	29.0°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.46
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×0.98
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.3°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.93
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	29.8 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 6c1c1963d383new best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.768 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.2% better
scenario mean	3.556 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.425 Wh/km
frame mass	55.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 76 via crossover

hypothesisWith its two parents both hovering near the best-so-far, this cross tests whether combining a wider arm with a steeper battery tilt and a slimmer waist can trim mass further in the same design neighborhood.

methodWidened the arm slightly, tilted the battery wedge up, thinned the mounting plate, and pinched the arm waist a touch narrower.

resultThis is the tightest result of the generation -- a genuine NEW WINNER, beating both parents and the prior best-so-far. The wider, more stable arm paired with a thinner plate and steeper battery wedge seems to buy just enough efficiency across the storm and crosswind scenarios without tipping into overstress. Worth testing next: hold this arm width/waist pairing fixed and push the battery wedge angle further to see if the gain keeps paying off.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.059	130.0	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.651	155.1	37.3°
crosswind	3.528	149.9	32.4°
gusty_light	3.408	144.8	31.6°
hot_thin	3.263	138.6	27.0°
storm	4.425	188.0	29.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.77
arm width	×0.88
arm waist	×0.43
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.7°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	31.5 mm
battery wedge	1.6°
plate thickness	×0.60
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 520b5f07c877

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.769 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.2% better
scenario mean	3.556 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.426 Wh/km
frame mass	55.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 79 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two mid-5.7s parents (6c1c1963d383 at 5.768, 6c3742252189 at 5.812), this candidate bets the stronger parent's genes will dominate and pull the weaker one's traits up toward the plateau.

methodGenes are near-identical to the stronger parent — negligible shifts in sweep, waist, and deck gap with no structural change.

resultFitness came in at 5.769, just above the current best-so-far and not a new winner, essentially matching its stronger parent's 5.768. This confirms the crossover mostly cloned the better parent rather than combining anything useful from the weaker one. Worth testing next: a crossover that explicitly inherits the weaker parent's deck-gap or plate-width value, to see if any of its distinguishing traits are beneficial in isolation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.059	130.0	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.652	155.2	37.3°
crosswind	3.528	149.9	32.4°
gusty_light	3.408	144.8	31.6°
hot_thin	3.263	138.6	27.0°
storm	4.426	188.0	29.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.77
arm width	×0.88
arm waist	×0.43
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.7°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	31.4 mm
battery wedge	1.6°
plate thickness	×0.60
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 9e1da466f3c7

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.770 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.2% better
scenario mean	3.557 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.426 Wh/km
frame mass	55.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 79 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing a plateau leader (6c1c1963d383 at 5.768) with a slightly weaker sibling (5156b078e727 at 5.779), this candidate bets a small battery-wedge increase inherited from the weaker parent won't drag performance down much.

methodGenes are near-identical to the stronger parent, with a slightly higher battery wedge (1.6° to 1.7°) and marginally wider rear sweep picked up from the weaker parent.

resultFitness came in at 5.770, close to but not beating the stronger parent's 5.768 or the best-so-far. The extra 0.1° of battery wedge appears to add a small, consistent penalty across scenarios rather than any benefit. Worth testing next: hold battery wedge fixed at 1.6° in future crosses from this lineage, since every wedge increase this generation has cost fitness.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.063	130.1	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.652	155.1	37.2°
crosswind	3.528	149.9	32.4°
gusty_light	3.409	144.8	31.6°
hot_thin	3.265	138.7	27.0°
storm	4.426	188.0	29.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.77
arm width	×0.88
arm waist	×0.43
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.7°
rear sweep	43.8°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	31.5 mm
battery wedge	1.7°
plate thickness	×0.60
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate ec2d7efaa042

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.776 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.1% better
scenario mean	3.560 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.431 Wh/km
frame mass	56.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 78 via crossover

hypothesisCrossed a slightly-off-champion candidate (5.776) with the champion itself (5.767), betting the recombination would land at or past the champion's number.

methodGenes came back near-identical to the parents, with plate width increased and plate length and battery wedge shifted slightly.

resultFitness matched the weaker parent at 5.776, still behind the 5.767 champion — the crossover didn't inherit the champion's edge. The carried-over plate widening looks like the drag; next worth crossing the champion with a genuinely different design rather than a close relative.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.063	130.1	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.656	155.3	37.2°
crosswind	3.533	150.1	32.4°
gusty_light	3.412	145.0	31.6°
hot_thin	3.267	138.8	27.0°
storm	4.431	188.2	29.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.77
arm width	×0.88
arm waist	×0.43
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.8°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.04
deck gap	31.4 mm
battery wedge	1.5°
plate thickness	×0.60
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 4a7c18fe3701

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.778 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.1% better
scenario mean	3.561 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.432 Wh/km
frame mass	55.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 79 via pivot

hypothesisStarting from the other 5.767 lineage member, this pivot explores whether more material-blend and a thinner, slightly longer plate can trade rigidity for weight without giving up storm performance.

methodRaised the material-blend value, thinned the plate, pulled front sweep back half a degree, and grew plate length marginally.

resultFinished at 5.778, essentially flat with its 5.767 parent but not an improvement, and no new best. The thinner plate likely saved a touch of mass but the sweep pullback cost aerodynamic efficiency in crosswind and gusty scenarios, netting out to a wash. Worth testing next: keep the thinner plate but leave front sweep at 37.3° to isolate the plate-thickness effect alone.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.063	130.1	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.663	155.6	37.3°
crosswind	3.532	150.1	32.4°
gusty_light	3.412	145.0	31.7°
hot_thin	3.266	138.7	27.1°
storm	4.432	188.3	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.8°
rear sweep	43.3°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	31.6 mm
battery wedge	1.1°
plate thickness	×0.60
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b517126ec88f

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.781 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.0% better
scenario mean	3.564 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.434 Wh/km
frame mass	56.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 79 via pivot

hypothesisParent 81837e8357bb sits at the current best (5.767); this pivot bets that nudging the battery wedge up and thickening the plate slightly, while trimming material, can shave a bit more off storm and headwind losses by borrowing direction from the more sweep-aggressive co-parent.

methodIncreased battery wedge from 1.0° to 1.3°, lengthened arms slightly, thickened the plate, and reduced the material-blend value, keeping the carbon-fiber plate material.

resultLanded at 5.781, worse than both the 5.767 parent and the current best-so-far — the extra wedge and plate thickness added mass/drag that outweighed any stability gain, most visible in storm and headwind ticking up. It confirms this genome is already near a local optimum for wedge angle. Worth testing next: revert wedge to 1.0° and isolate just the plate-thickness change to see which piece actually hurt.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.068	130.3	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.661	155.5	37.2°
crosswind	3.535	150.2	32.3°
gusty_light	3.415	145.1	31.6°
hot_thin	3.271	138.9	27.0°
storm	4.434	188.4	29.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×0.99
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.3°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.93
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	29.7 mm
battery wedge	1.3°
plate thickness	×0.64
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 17cd9b8ac906

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.784 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.0% better
scenario mean	3.565 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.438 Wh/km
frame mass	56.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 78 via pivot

hypothesisA near-champion parent (5.768) was nudged with a marginal thickness bump borrowed from a weak sibling, betting that slightly stiffer arms would trim storm losses without much mass penalty.

methodArm thickness nudged from 2.5mm to 2.6mm; arm waist, material blend and arm length left essentially unchanged.

resultFitness came in at 5.784, a small step backward from the 5.768 parent and short of the 5.767 champion — the thickness increase added weight everywhere without a compensating robustness win. This design already seems to sit at its arm-thickness optimum; next worth trying a thickness decrease instead of an increase.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.066	130.3	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.663	155.6	37.3°
crosswind	3.536	150.2	32.4°
gusty_light	3.417	145.1	31.6°
hot_thin	3.271	138.9	27.0°
storm	4.438	188.5	29.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.77
arm width	×0.88
arm waist	×0.44
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.7°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	31.5 mm
battery wedge	1.7°
plate thickness	×0.60
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 270031bd6fe0

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.787 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.0% better
scenario mean	3.567 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.440 Wh/km
frame mass	56.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 79 via pivot

hypothesisSame 81837e8357bb parent as the earlier pivot, but this one bets the opposite direction on plate geometry — shrink plate length while thickening it and pushing sweep further forward — to see if a stiffer, more compact deck cuts storm losses.

methodShortened plate length, thickened the plate, lengthened arms slightly, and pushed front sweep forward from 37.3° to 37.6°.

resultFitness worsened to 5.787, losing ground against both parents and the best-so-far, with every scenario ticking up slightly including storm and headwind. The combined thicker-plate-plus-shorter-length move added mass without a compensating aero benefit. Worth testing next: thicken the plate alone without shrinking plate length, to isolate whether stiffness or shrinkage is the drag.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.069	130.4	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.670	155.9	37.2°
crosswind	3.535	150.2	32.3°
gusty_light	3.417	145.2	31.6°
hot_thin	3.272	139.0	27.0°
storm	4.440	188.6	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.46
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×0.98
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.6°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.92
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	29.7 mm
battery wedge	0.8°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate fcc07cdc62a1

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.790 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.9% better
scenario mean	3.569 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.442 Wh/km
frame mass	56.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 79 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing ec2d7efaa042 (5.776) with leader 81837e8357bb, this candidate bets a wider arm and plate can improve stiffness enough to offset the weaker parent's known shortfall.

methodWidened the arm and plate, nudged front sweep up from 36.8° to 37.0°, and slightly reduced battery wedge.

resultFitness came in at 5.790, worse than the leader parent and not competitive with the generation's best of 5.763, with storm and headwind both elevated. The wider arm and plate combination again shows this population's mass budget is already tight — added width costs more than any stiffness gain returns. Worth testing next: isolate the plate-width increase alone, without the arm widening, to see if plate stiffening on its own is net-positive.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.068	130.3	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.671	155.9	37.4°
crosswind	3.540	150.4	32.5°
gusty_light	3.419	145.3	31.7°
hot_thin	3.272	139.0	27.1°
storm	4.442	188.7	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.77
arm width	×0.91
arm waist	×0.43
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.0°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.04
deck gap	31.3 mm
battery wedge	1.4°
plate thickness	×0.60
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 1c13cea636c2

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.793 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.9% better
scenario mean	3.571 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.445 Wh/km
frame mass	56.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 79 via pivot

hypothesisDrawing from a slightly weaker parent (9c7bb4e43f3f at 5.779), this pivot tries reintroducing a whisper of arm-cutout material removal alongside a shorter arm, betting that shedding a little arm mass offsets the parent's existing weakness.

methodGrew plate length slightly, opened the deck gap by half a millimeter, introduced a trace of arm cutout, and shortened arms marginally.

resultFitness rose to 5.793, the worst of this generation's pivots and worse than its already-subpar parent — the tiny cutout and shorter arm didn't recover enough to offset the wider deck gap, with storm and headwind both elevated. Deck-gap widening on this genome consistently costs more than cutouts save. Worth testing next: revert deck gap to ~30.8mm while keeping the arm cutout, to check if cutouts alone are net-positive.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.071	130.5	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.672	156.0	37.3°
crosswind	3.540	150.4	32.4°
gusty_light	3.421	145.3	31.6°
hot_thin	3.275	139.1	27.0°
storm	4.445	188.8	29.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.77
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.46
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	37.3°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	31.3 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.64
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 89f62176691e

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.843 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.1% better
scenario mean	3.602 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.482 Wh/km
frame mass	60.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 79 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing a slightly weaker parent (54a36e893e10 at 5.782) with leader faeb6f8edb27, this candidate bets a beefier arm cross-section can buy enough stiffness margin to justify the added mass, particularly for storm robustness.

methodCrossed the two parents and picked up a much thicker arm (2.5mm to 2.8mm) along with a longer plate and a slightly wider deck gap.

resultFitness jumped to 5.843, the worst result in this generation and clearly worse than either parent, with every scenario penalized including storm and headwind. The 2.8mm arm thickness is the standout culprit — this population has consistently favored 2.5mm arms, confirming thicker arms cost more in carried mass than they save in stiffness at this design point. Worth testing next: avoid arm-thickness mutations above 2.5mm for this lineage and instead test the plate-length change in isolation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.097	131.6	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.704	157.3	37.5°
crosswind	3.577	151.9	32.6°
gusty_light	3.452	146.6	31.8°
hot_thin	3.302	140.3	27.1°
storm	4.482	190.4	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.77
arm width	×0.86
arm waist	×0.43
arm thickness	2.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.1°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	31.6 mm
battery wedge	1.5°
plate thickness	×0.60
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate bf7d9ddf87f6

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.768 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.2% better
scenario mean	3.555 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.425 Wh/km
frame mass	55.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 78 via crossover

hypothesisA self-crossover of a near-champion parent (5.768), essentially testing whether recombining the parent with itself could shake loose a slightly fitter variant by chance.

methodGenes came back nearly identical to the parent — no meaningful change in arm geometry, sweep, or plate dimensions.

resultFitness matched the parent almost exactly at 5.768, confirming the design is stable under self-crossover but it didn't budge past the 5.767 champion. This reads as a wasted-effort replicate rather than a real experiment; next worth forcing a larger mutation step when self-crossing near-identical parents.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.059	130.0	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.651	155.1	37.2°
crosswind	3.527	149.9	32.4°
gusty_light	3.408	144.8	31.6°
hot_thin	3.262	138.6	27.0°
storm	4.425	188.0	29.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.77
arm width	×0.88
arm waist	×0.43
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.8°
rear sweep	43.8°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	31.5 mm
battery wedge	1.6°
plate thickness	×0.60
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 318f5b17dcdb✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.770 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.2% better
scenario mean	3.557 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.427 Wh/km
frame mass	55.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 75 via designer

hypothesisThe designer bets on a clean baseline test — arm thickness held at the pack's apparent sweet spot (2.5mm) but with battery wedge zeroed out, isolating whether wedge angle earns its keep.

methodFresh design with arm thickness at 2.5mm, no arm cutouts, and battery wedge angle set to 0.0° instead of the ~1.0° used across the rest of the generation.

resultFitness came in at 5.77, the best of the three designer probes and very close to (but not beating) the new best-so-far of 5.769. Zeroing the wedge barely moved fitness versus the ~1.0° crossover pool, suggesting battery wedge angle contributes little at this design point. Next: combine this zero-wedge, 2.5mm-arm baseline with 3ea600b4fceb's shorter plate and wider front sweep to see if the two independent gains stack.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.057	129.9	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.657	155.4	37.2°
crosswind	3.529	149.9	32.4°
gusty_light	3.408	144.8	31.6°
hot_thin	3.261	138.6	27.0°
storm	4.427	188.1	29.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.60
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 9c7bb4e43f3f

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.779 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.1% better
scenario mean	3.562 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.434 Wh/km
frame mass	56.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 78 via pivot

hypothesisAnother direct pivot off the champion (5.767) bet that tightening the deck gap and flattening the battery wedge further would trim mass and drag together.

methodBattery wedge flattened to 0.2 degrees, deck gap tightened from 31.5mm to 30.8mm, arm width widened slightly, material blend shifted.

resultFitness came in at 5.779, essentially tied with the sibling pivot above and just short of the 5.767 champion, with uniform small losses across all six scenarios. The tighter deck gap didn't translate into a net win; next worth testing deck-gap tightening in isolation, without touching the battery wedge.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.066	130.2	25.1°
cold_headwind	3.657	155.3	37.1°
crosswind	3.533	150.1	32.3°
gusty_light	3.414	145.0	31.6°
hot_thin	3.270	138.9	27.0°
storm	4.434	188.3	29.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.46
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.3°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.8 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 5156b078e727

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.779 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.1% better
scenario mean	3.562 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.434 Wh/km
frame mass	55.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 78 via pivot

hypothesisDescended directly from the reigning champion (5.767), this pivot tested whether leveling the battery wedge and pushing rear sweep further back could shave a bit more off crosswind/storm handling.

methodBattery wedge flattened from 1.0 to 0.3 degrees, rear sweep increased about 1 degree, arm waist narrowed slightly, material blend shifted.

resultFitness ticked up to 5.779, close to but missing the champion's 5.767, with small losses spread evenly across scenarios. The flatter wedge didn't offset the extra rear sweep; next worth testing the wedge flattening on its own, without the rear-sweep change.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.064	130.1	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.665	155.7	37.3°
crosswind	3.531	150.0	32.4°
gusty_light	3.413	145.0	31.7°
hot_thin	3.267	138.8	27.0°
storm	4.434	188.4	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.42
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.4°
rear sweep	44.6°
plate length	×0.93
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	31.4 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 54a36e893e10

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.782 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.0% better
scenario mean	3.564 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.436 Wh/km
frame mass	55.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 78 via crossover

hypothesisA self-crossover of a near-champion parent (5.769), betting that small plate-shape recombination noise might turn up a fitter neighbor.

methodPlate stretched slightly longer and wider, arm width narrowed a touch, front sweep nudged up by under half a degree.

resultFitness landed at 5.782, a small step worse than the 5.769 parent and behind the 5.767 champion, with tiny losses across every scenario. The plate enlargement likely added drag/mass without benefit; next worth trying the arm-width narrowing alone, without the plate stretch.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.065	130.2	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.663	155.6	37.4°
crosswind	3.536	150.2	32.5°
gusty_light	3.415	145.1	31.7°
hot_thin	3.268	138.8	27.0°
storm	4.436	188.4	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.77
arm width	×0.86
arm waist	×0.43
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.1°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	31.5 mm
battery wedge	1.6°
plate thickness	×0.60
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 2db28b96541c

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.787 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.0% better
scenario mean	3.568 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.439 Wh/km
frame mass	56.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 78 via pivot

hypothesisA near-champion parent (5.769) was pushed toward slightly heavier plate and arm stock, again borrowing from a weak sibling, testing whether marginally more material would pay off in adverse-weather scenarios.

methodPlate thickness increased slightly, arm thickness raised to 2.6mm, arm waist widened marginally, plate length essentially unchanged.

resultFitness landed at 5.787, slightly worse than the 5.769 parent and behind the 5.767 champion, with small uniform losses across every scenario. This confirms the design is riding right at its material-efficiency edge; next worth trying a paired thickness decrease on both plate and arm together instead of an increase.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.071	130.4	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.663	155.6	37.2°
crosswind	3.539	150.4	32.3°
gusty_light	3.420	145.3	31.6°
hot_thin	3.274	139.1	27.0°
storm	4.439	188.6	29.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.46
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.3°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.93
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.3 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.61
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 6c3742252189✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.812 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.6% better
scenario mean	3.582 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.459 Wh/km
frame mass	57.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 78 via designer

hypothesisA designer-proposed variant kept most of the converged gene values but tested whether a much larger vertical deck gap could improve airflow or thermal stability.

methodBuilt with genes close to the converged champion region but with deck gap enlarged from about 31-32mm to 42mm.

resultFitness landed at 5.812, notably worse than the 5.767 champion, with small losses spread across every scenario. The larger deck gap likely added frame height and mass without a matching aerodynamic or thermal payoff; next worth sweeping deck gap at finer steps between 32mm and 42mm to find where the penalty starts.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.077	130.7	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.688	156.7	37.4°
crosswind	3.556	151.1	32.5°
gusty_light	3.432	145.8	31.7°
hot_thin	3.282	139.4	27.1°
storm	4.459	189.4	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.44
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.3°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.93
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	42.0 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate f4db3aaf1636

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.816 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.5% better
scenario mean	3.585 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.462 Wh/km
frame mass	59.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 78 via mutation

hypothesisMutated off a near-champion parent (5.768), testing whether light arm cutouts (weight savings) combined with thicker arms (stiffness) could beat the flat, uncut design.

methodIntroduced light arm cutouts removing about 5% of arm material and thickened arms from 2.5mm to 2.8mm.

resultFitness rose to 5.816, clearly worse than the 5.768 parent and the 5.767 champion, with losses across all scenarios including storm (4.46). The cutouts likely added drag/turbulence that the extra thickness couldn't offset — cutouts still haven't paid off in this lineage; next worth testing cutouts alone at the champion's original arm thickness rather than paired with a thickness increase.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.082	130.9	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.684	156.5	37.3°
crosswind	3.558	151.2	32.4°
gusty_light	3.435	145.9	31.6°
hot_thin	3.287	139.6	27.0°
storm	4.462	189.6	29.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.77
arm width	×0.88
arm waist	×0.43
arm thickness	2.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.05
front sweep	36.7°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	31.5 mm
battery wedge	1.6°
plate thickness	×0.60
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 77a1d42e5c1e

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.864 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.9% better
scenario mean	3.615 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.498 Wh/km
frame mass	61.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 78 via pivot

hypothesisParent (5.771) was already near the plateau; this pivot borrowed genes from a much weaker sibling (7.477) betting that extra front sweep and beefier arms would buy more storm/crosswind margin.

methodIncreased front sweep by about 2 degrees, thickened the arms from 2.5mm to 3.0mm, lengthened arms slightly, and widened the plate marginally.

resultFitness rose to 5.864, worse than both parents and well off the 5.767 champion, with every scenario degrading, including storm (4.50, among the worst seen this generation) — the added arm mass clearly outweighed any stiffness gain. Worth testing the extra sweep alone, at the original 2.5mm thickness, to isolate whether sweep or thickness drove the regression.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.109	132.1	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.719	158.0	37.3°
crosswind	3.586	152.3	32.4°
gusty_light	3.463	147.1	31.7°
hot_thin	3.314	140.8	27.1°
storm	4.498	191.1	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.81
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.41
arm thickness	3.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	39.4°
rear sweep	43.1°
plate length	×0.92
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	33.1 mm
battery wedge	0.7°
plate thickness	×0.61
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 69d334abfd4a✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.124 Wh/km
vs baseline	11.1% better
scenario mean	3.773 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.701 Wh/km
frame mass	82.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 78 via designer

hypothesisA designer-proposed clean-slate candidate bet that a much more swept-back arm layout with a larger plate footprint could unlock a fundamentally different, more efficient structure.

methodBuilt from scratch with shorter arms, a wide arm waist, thick 2.8mm arms, aggressive 46/55 degree front/rear sweep, and a notably larger plate.

resultFitness came in at 6.124, far off the 5.767 champion and worse across every scenario, especially storm (4.70). The oversized plate and steep sweep angles appear to have added substantial mass and drag with no offsetting benefit; next worth testing intermediate sweep angles (around 40 degrees) paired with the champion's smaller plate instead of this large one.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.235	137.4	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.890	165.2	38.2°
crosswind	3.749	159.3	33.5°
gusty_light	3.611	153.4	32.1°
hot_thin	3.451	146.6	27.3°
storm	4.701	199.7	29.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	2.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	46.0°
rear sweep	55.0°
plate length	×1.28
plate width	×1.24
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.78
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 052f1fa949b5✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.163 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.5% better
scenario mean	3.798 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.729 Wh/km
frame mass	81.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 78 via designer

hypothesisAnother designer clean-slate bet tested whether much longer arms combined with symmetric front/rear sweep could trade higher structural mass for better gusty/crosswind stability.

methodBuilt with long arms (about 1.5x the champion's length), symmetric 40/40 degree front/rear sweep, thick 2.8mm arm stock, and an enlarged plate.

resultFitness came in at 6.163, the worst candidate this generation and far off the 5.767 champion, with losses across every scenario. The long-arm, symmetric-sweep architecture appears fundamentally heavier without compensating efficiency; next worth abandoning long-arm designer proposals in favor of refining sweep and thickness within the current short-arm regime.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.252	138.1	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.934	167.1	39.0°
crosswind	3.780	160.6	33.9°
gusty_light	3.631	154.3	32.6°
hot_thin	3.464	147.2	27.5°
storm	4.729	200.9	31.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	2.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	40.0°
rear sweep	40.0°
plate length	×1.15
plate width	×1.10
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.78
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate bd90782a3b54new best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.769 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.2% better
scenario mean	3.556 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.424 Wh/km
frame mass	55.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 76 via crossover

hypothesisTwo top-tier crossover survivors sit within a hair of the record; this cross bets that a small nudge to battery-deck spacing and plate thickness can still shave a sliver more off the design.

methodWidened the battery deck gap slightly and thinned the mounting plate a touch relative to its stronger parent.

resultMatched the incumbent record almost exactly and edged it out at full precision -- a NEW WINNER, though by a razor-thin margin, showing the population converging tightly around this design pocket. The gain likely comes from the marginally thinner plate shedding a sliver of mass without pushing arm stress past its limit. Worth testing next: push plate thickness down further in small steps to find where the stress margin actually breaks.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.062	130.1	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.650	155.1	37.2°
crosswind	3.529	149.9	32.3°
gusty_light	3.409	144.8	31.6°
hot_thin	3.264	138.7	27.0°
storm	4.424	188.0	29.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.3°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.93
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.3 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.60
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 3ea600b4fcebnew best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.769 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.2% better
scenario mean	3.556 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.425 Wh/km
frame mass	55.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 75 via crossover

hypothesisDespite 452eeb990a01 being the weaker parent, this cross bets that its larger front-sweep angle combined with the stronger parent's compact arm width would cut plate mass further than any combination tried so far.

methodPlate length shrunk to the smallest value seen this generation, front sweep opened to the largest value seen this generation, and arm width was tightened.

resultFitness hit 5.769, beating every other candidate this generation including caf7425025ef's earlier 5.774, making it the NEW BEST-SO-FAR. Every scenario ticked down versus the rest of the pack, with storm still dominant at 4.43 but no longer climbing — smaller plate and more front sweep appear to cut mass and drag together rather than trading one for the other. Next: push plate length below x0.93 at this same sweep angle to find where the mass/stiffness trade finally breaks.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.062	130.1	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.652	155.2	37.1°
crosswind	3.526	149.8	32.2°
gusty_light	3.408	144.8	31.5°
hot_thin	3.265	138.7	27.0°
storm	4.425	188.0	29.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.3°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.93
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	31.5 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate f5f3dcd08cef

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.769 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.2% better
scenario mean	3.556 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.426 Wh/km
frame mass	55.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 77 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the prior best-so-far design with a near-tied leader, betting the near-identical recombination would preserve or slightly extend the lead.

methodThe recombination made almost no substantive change to either parent's design.

resultLanded at 5.769, flat with its parents and just short of best-so-far — not a new winner. This further confirms the design is stable under minor recombination but isn't yielding new gains. Worth testing next: since near-identical crossovers keep landing in the same 5.768-5.771 band, the next real improvement likely needs a deliberate, isolated single-gene perturbation rather than another minimal-change recombination.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.059	130.0	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.652	155.2	37.3°
crosswind	3.528	149.9	32.4°
gusty_light	3.408	144.8	31.6°
hot_thin	3.263	138.6	27.0°
storm	4.426	188.0	29.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.77
arm width	×0.88
arm waist	×0.43
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.7°
rear sweep	43.8°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	31.5 mm
battery wedge	1.6°
plate thickness	×0.60
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 96a7776d4941

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.769 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.2% better
scenario mean	3.557 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.425 Wh/km
frame mass	55.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 77 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing a plateau leader with a weaker performer, betting the strong parent's genes would dominate and simply hold the line.

methodThe recombination barely changed anything — essentially a near-identical restatement of the strong parent's design.

resultMatched the strong parent almost exactly at 5.769, not a new winner but confirming the design is stable under this crossover. It doesn't add new information about the plateau's shape. Worth testing next: force a larger single-gene perturbation instead of another near-identical recombination, to actually probe the edges of the plateau.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.061	130.1	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.651	155.1	37.2°
crosswind	3.530	150.0	32.3°
gusty_light	3.409	144.8	31.6°
hot_thin	3.264	138.7	27.0°
storm	4.425	188.0	29.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.3°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.93
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.3 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.60
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 689963c40139

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.771 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.2% better
scenario mean	3.557 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.427 Wh/km
frame mass	56.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 77 via crossover

hypothesisSelf-cross of a mid-plateau design, testing whether a slightly leaner material mix plus a narrower arm waist and thinner plate could sneak closer to the leader.

methodMaterial mix shifted leaner, plate thickness trimmed slightly, arm waist pinched narrower.

resultLanded at 5.771, essentially a wash — a hair worse than its own parent and short of best-so-far, with the three small nudges apparently cancelling each other out. Worth testing next: isolate the material lightening alone, since the combined tweak produced no measurable gain.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.059	130.0	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.655	155.3	37.2°
crosswind	3.527	149.8	32.4°
gusty_light	3.409	144.8	31.6°
hot_thin	3.263	138.6	27.0°
storm	4.427	188.1	29.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.44
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×0.99
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	43.2°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.62
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b63dac7ce1c4

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.771 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.2% better
scenario mean	3.558 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.425 Wh/km
frame mass	55.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 77 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two tied plateau leaders, betting that a touch more deck clearance and a slightly shorter plate might specifically help the storm scenario.

methodDeck gap opened by about 0.3 mm, plate length shortened roughly 1%.

resultCame in just below the parents at 5.771, essentially flat with a marginal storm penalty — the deck/plate tweak didn't move the needle either way. Worth testing next: open the deck gap further in isolation to check for a real trend versus noise.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.064	130.2	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.650	155.1	37.2°
crosswind	3.531	150.0	32.3°
gusty_light	3.410	144.9	31.6°
hot_thin	3.267	138.8	27.0°
storm	4.425	188.0	29.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.3°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.6 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.60
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 48fa896bb2a0

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.776 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.1% better
scenario mean	3.560 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.431 Wh/km
frame mass	56.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 77 via crossover

hypothesisSelf-cross of a design sitting right at best-so-far, betting a wider plate for rigidity plus a shorter plate and gentler battery tilt would rebalance toward even better efficiency.

methodPlate widened about 4%, plate length shortened roughly 1%, battery tilt eased slightly.

resultRegressed against its own parent (5.776 vs 5.768), degrading slightly across all six scenarios. The wider plate looks like the likely culprit, adding mass or drag without payoff. Worth testing next: try the plate-length trim alone, without the width increase.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.063	130.1	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.657	155.3	37.2°
crosswind	3.533	150.1	32.4°
gusty_light	3.412	145.0	31.6°
hot_thin	3.267	138.8	27.0°
storm	4.431	188.2	29.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.77
arm width	×0.88
arm waist	×0.43
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.7°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.04
deck gap	31.4 mm
battery wedge	1.5°
plate thickness	×0.60
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate bffe99e4821f

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.778 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.1% better
scenario mean	3.561 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.435 Wh/km
frame mass	56.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 77 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing a middling performer with a plateau leader, betting that a narrower arm waist combined with a wider plate could inherit the leader's strength while patching the weaker parent's design.

methodPlate widened about 2%, arm waist pinched roughly 7% narrower.

resultLanded at 5.778, between the two parents but below the strong parent's own baseline — the narrower waist likely introduced a flex penalty that outweighed the plate widening. Worth testing next: apply the narrower waist alone against the strong parent's baseline, without the plate width change.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.059	130.0	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.663	155.6	37.2°
crosswind	3.532	150.0	32.3°
gusty_light	3.413	145.0	31.6°
hot_thin	3.264	138.7	27.0°
storm	4.435	188.4	29.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.77
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.42
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.02
front sweep	36.9°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	31.3 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.64
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate ce16092bd9af

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.784 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.0% better
scenario mean	3.565 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.439 Wh/km
frame mass	57.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 77 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing a mid-pack design with a plateau leader, betting a thicker plate for stiffness combined with a slightly leaner tip could balance out to a net gain.

methodPlate thickened about 7%, tip brought up to full thickness, plate widened roughly 1%, plate length shortened about 1%.

resultRegressed against both parents (5.784), losing ground across every scenario. The thicker plate added mass that the tip and length trims couldn't offset. Worth testing next: try the plate-length trim alone against the leader's baseline, since the thickness increase looks like the main drag.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.063	130.1	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.667	155.8	37.3°
crosswind	3.535	150.2	32.4°
gusty_light	3.416	145.1	31.6°
hot_thin	3.268	138.8	27.0°
storm	4.439	188.6	29.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	43.2°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	32.4 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.64
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 92b13b488105

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.785 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.0% better
scenario mean	3.566 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.439 Wh/km
frame mass	55.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 77 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two mid-pack designs, betting that a slightly steeper front sweep plus a heavier material mix would recover some lost ground.

methodMaterial mix shifted heavier, front sweep steepened about 0.3°, plate narrowed roughly 1%, plate thickened slightly.

resultRegressed against both parents (5.785), losing ground in every scenario. The heavier material and thicker plate added mass without any aerodynamic payoff to offset it. Worth testing next: revert the material and thickness changes and test the sweep adjustment alone.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.066	130.2	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.668	155.8	37.3°
crosswind	3.535	150.2	32.4°
gusty_light	3.416	145.1	31.7°
hot_thin	3.269	138.9	27.0°
storm	4.439	188.6	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×0.99
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.4°
rear sweep	43.2°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.61
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate c229c80180c1

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.795 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.9% better
scenario mean	3.572 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.445 Wh/km
frame mass	57.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 77 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two parents tied at the plateau best, betting that beefing up the arms for extra stiffness margin could let the plate go thinner without a net mass penalty.

methodArm thickness raised by about 0.2 mm, plate thickness trimmed slightly.

resultRegressed against both parents (5.795), losing ground across every scenario including storm. The added arm mass clearly outweighed the plate savings. Worth testing next: try the plate trim alone, without the arm thickening, to see if it was the arm change specifically that hurt.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.073	130.5	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.671	156.0	37.2°
crosswind	3.544	150.5	32.3°
gusty_light	3.422	145.4	31.6°
hot_thin	3.277	139.2	27.0°
storm	4.445	188.9	29.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.7 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.3°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.93
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	31.5 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.62
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 8ffc4f7cc2d5

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.863 Wh/km
vs baseline	0.3% better
scenario mean	4.230 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.268 Wh/km
frame mass	136.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 77 via immigrant

hypothesisA fresh random immigrant was injected into the converged plateau population to test whether a wholly different design family — thicker arms, shallower sweep — might reveal an unexplored basin the crossovers can't reach.

methodFully independent random genome: much thicker arms, notably shallower front and rear sweep angles, a steeper battery tilt, and a thicker, heavier plate.

resultCollapsed to 6.863, over a full point worse than best-so-far and badly behind across every scenario, especially storm. This confirms the thick-arm, shallow-sweep, heavy-plate combination is a dead end relative to the refined plateau family. Worth testing next: graft just the shallow sweep angle onto an otherwise elite genome to rule it out cleanly, rather than judging it by this whole-genome failure.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.615	153.6	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.385	186.3	39.4°
crosswind	4.220	179.3	34.2°
gusty_light	4.038	171.5	32.9°
hot_thin	3.853	163.7	27.7°
storm	5.268	223.8	33.0°

gene	value
arm length	×0.98
arm width	×0.97
arm waist	×1.03
arm thickness	5.4 mm
tip thickness	×0.98
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.4°
rear sweep	35.5°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	30.7 mm
battery wedge	3.9°
plate thickness	×1.11
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate da53cb3c2a98

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.770 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.2% better
scenario mean	3.556 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.427 Wh/km
frame mass	55.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 76 via crossover

hypothesisCross of the near-best parent with a mid-pack one, testing whether a slight material adjustment and rear-sweep pullback could combine both parents' strengths.

methodThinned the arm tip slightly, pulled the rear sweep angle in a bit, adjusted the material blend, and opened arm cutouts marginally.

resultMatched the stronger parent exactly -- no net gain, and short of the best-so-far. The small changes canceled out rather than compounding, another sign the population is sitting on a tight local plateau. Worth testing next: combine this rear-sweep pullback with the battery-wedge tilt that won this generation, to see if the two independently-helpful changes stack.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.058	129.9	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.654	155.2	37.2°
crosswind	3.527	149.8	32.4°
gusty_light	3.408	144.8	31.6°
hot_thin	3.262	138.6	27.0°
storm	4.427	188.1	29.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×0.99
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	43.2°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.60
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate db0e349c31b0

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.770 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.2% better
scenario mean	3.556 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.427 Wh/km
frame mass	55.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 76 via crossover

hypothesisA near-clone cross of the two parents closest to the record, testing whether the crossover operator could find a slightly better blend than either parent alone.

methodGenes landed almost identical to the parents -- arm width nudged up marginally and battery wedge flattened to level.

resultMatched one parent's fitness exactly -- essentially a wash, no improvement over either parent and short of the best-so-far. This suggests the population has converged tightly enough that this gene combination sits on a local plateau. Worth testing next: try a larger mutation step on arm waist or sweep angle from this same near-optimal base to escape the plateau.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.057	129.9	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.656	155.3	37.2°
crosswind	3.528	149.9	32.4°
gusty_light	3.408	144.8	31.6°
hot_thin	3.261	138.5	27.0°
storm	4.427	188.1	29.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.60
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 8dff7a249bfdnew best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.775 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.1% better
scenario mean	3.559 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.431 Wh/km
frame mass	55.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 74 via mutation

hypothesisThe parent sat right at the plateau edge (5.787); this mutation bets the deck plate is over-built and that shaving material could cut mass and drag without sacrificing needed stiffness margin.

methodMutated plate thickness down noticeably (roughly a 5% cut in scale), with only a negligible plate-length restatement alongside it.

resultA NEW WINNER at 5.775, beating the prior 5.786 best-so-far across every single scenario, including storm. The thinner plate paid off directly, showing the deck plate had genuine slack rather than sitting at a structural limit. Next: push plate thickness even further to find where storm-load safety margin actually starts to break.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.059	129.9	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.661	155.5	37.2°
crosswind	3.532	150.0	32.4°
gusty_light	3.411	144.9	31.6°
hot_thin	3.263	138.6	27.0°
storm	4.431	188.2	29.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×0.60
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 1dc2cb3a6fe0

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.780 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.1% better
scenario mean	3.562 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.436 Wh/km
frame mass	56.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 76 via crossover

hypothesisCross of two mid-pack parents, betting that leveling the battery wedge back to flat and trimming plate length slightly would recover fitness lost by both.

methodFlattened the battery wedge to level, shortened the plate slightly, and widened the arm a touch.

resultImproved on both parents but still trailed the best-so-far. Flattening the wedge and trimming plate length both nudged mass and drag down modestly. Worth testing next: keep the flat wedge and shorten the plate further to see if the trend keeps improving toward the record.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.060	130.0	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.664	155.7	37.3°
crosswind	3.533	150.1	32.4°
gusty_light	3.414	145.0	31.7°
hot_thin	3.265	138.7	27.0°
storm	4.436	188.5	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.77
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.02
front sweep	36.9°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.93
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	31.3 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 30824f879e88

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.781 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.1% better
scenario mean	3.563 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.435 Wh/km
frame mass	56.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 76 via crossover

hypothesisCross of a mid-pack parent with a near-best parent, testing whether the steeper battery tilt that helped elsewhere would lift this lineage too.

methodIncreased the battery wedge angle and opened the arm cutouts fractionally.

resultBeat the weaker parent but trailed the stronger parent and the best-so-far. The wedge tilt helped this lineage somewhat, but the added cutouts likely cost a bit of arm stiffness margin. Worth testing next: apply the same wedge change on the stronger parent's baseline without any cutouts, to isolate the wedge's true contribution.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.067	130.3	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.662	155.6	37.2°
crosswind	3.533	150.1	32.4°
gusty_light	3.415	145.1	31.6°
hot_thin	3.270	138.9	27.0°
storm	4.435	188.4	29.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.6°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	31.5 mm
battery wedge	1.6°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate de63442c039a

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.788 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.9% better
scenario mean	3.568 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.440 Wh/km
frame mass	55.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 76 via crossover

hypothesisA conservative cross between two current front-runners, betting a marginal arm-length increase and slightly thicker plate would still land near the winning fitness band.

methodLengthened the arm very slightly and thickened the mounting plate a touch relative to its stronger parent.

resultLanded worse than both parents and off the best-so-far, a small regression across every scenario. The extra length and plate thickness added weight without a compensating structural or aerodynamic payoff. Worth testing next: revert the plate thickening but keep the arm-length change isolated to see which one actually hurt.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.068	130.3	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.671	155.9	37.4°
crosswind	3.539	150.4	32.4°
gusty_light	3.418	145.2	31.7°
hot_thin	3.271	139.0	27.1°
storm	4.440	188.6	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.3°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.93
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	31.6 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.62
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate f35666ea7224

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.801 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.8% better
scenario mean	3.576 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.450 Wh/km
frame mass	58.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 76 via crossover

hypothesisCross of a mid-pack parent with the near-best parent, testing whether a small material-blend shift plus a wider plate could combine the strengths of both.

methodAdjusted the material blend slightly, widened the plate, thickened the arm a touch, and widened the arm cross-section.

resultLanded worse than both parents. The extra plate width and thicker arm added mass that outweighed any material efficiency gain, falling well short of the best-so-far. Worth testing next: isolate the material-blend change alone against the near-best parent's baseline to see if it helps without the added arm/plate mass.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.076	130.7	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.674	156.1	37.2°
crosswind	3.549	150.8	32.4°
gusty_light	3.426	145.6	31.6°
hot_thin	3.280	139.4	27.0°
storm	4.450	189.1	29.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.77
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.7°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	31.4 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate f75f83b22b07

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.816 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.5% better
scenario mean	3.585 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.463 Wh/km
frame mass	57.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 76 via crossover

hypothesisCross of two mid-pack parents, testing whether widening the arm waist and pulling both sweep angles further apart could shave more off either parent's fitness.

methodWidened the arm waist slightly, increased both front and rear sweep angles, and widened the plate marginally.

resultLanded worse than both parents. The larger waist and wider sweep spread likely increased structural mass and drag simultaneously rather than trading one for the other efficiently. Worth testing next: try the sweep-angle change alone, holding arm waist fixed at the better parent's value, to see if sweep alone helps.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.082	130.9	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.690	156.8	37.4°
crosswind	3.555	151.0	32.5°
gusty_light	3.435	145.9	31.8°
hot_thin	3.286	139.6	27.1°
storm	4.463	189.6	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.46
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.5°
rear sweep	44.2°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	31.8 mm
battery wedge	1.4°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 6d1de7bcdfa4

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.825 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.4% better
scenario mean	3.591 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.469 Wh/km
frame mass	60.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 76 via crossover

hypothesisCross of the near-best parent with a weaker one, betting that a thicker arm and slightly forward front sweep might buy structural margin worth the tradeoff.

methodThickened the arm noticeably, widened the plate slightly, opened arm cutouts a touch, and increased the front sweep angle slightly.

resultRegressed to the worst valid fitness among this generation's crossovers, worse than both parents. The thicker arm added mass across every scenario without buying enough stiffness benefit to pay for it. Worth testing next: keep the front-sweep change but drop arm thickness back to the parent value to see if that alone was the drag on fitness.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.087	131.1	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.692	156.9	37.2°
crosswind	3.564	151.4	32.4°
gusty_light	3.440	146.1	31.6°
hot_thin	3.292	139.9	27.0°
storm	4.469	189.9	29.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.9 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	37.5°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.93
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	31.5 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate f39db9cefcf9

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	7.247 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.2% worse
scenario mean	4.465 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.564 Wh/km
frame mass	154.5 g
material	petg
born	generation 76 via immigrant

hypothesisA blind immigrant probing a heavier, high-wedge, wide-sweep design far outside the converged population, testing whether a fundamentally different structural approach could open a new path.

methodBuilt from scratch with near-baseline arm length, a narrower arm, a much thicker arm, a large front sweep angle, a steep battery wedge, and a different plastic material.

resultValid but far worse than the best-so-far across every scenario -- roughly 25% worse overall. The oversized arm thickness and steep wedge angle added substantial mass and drag that the material's properties couldn't offset with efficiency gains. This confirms the converged carbon-fiber, thin-arm, moderate-wedge design is solidly better than this heavier alternative. Worth testing next: try the wide front-sweep angle alone, isolated from the thick arm and different material, crossed into the elite population, since sweep this extreme hasn't been tested there yet.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.788	160.9	26.0°
cold_headwind	4.724	200.7	40.7°
crosswind	4.446	188.9	35.4°
gusty_light	4.243	180.2	33.9°
hot_thin	4.025	171.0	28.4°
storm	5.564	236.4	38.8°

gene	value
arm length	×0.99
arm width	×0.66
arm waist	×1.20
arm thickness	8.0 mm
tip thickness	×0.89
arm cutouts	×0.22
front sweep	51.9°
rear sweep	40.5°
plate length	×1.13
plate width	×1.11
deck gap	41.3 mm
battery wedge	7.7°
plate thickness	×1.41
material	petg

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 087e381cbaa8

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm overstressed (asa)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	84.2 g
material	asa
born	generation 76 via immigrant

hypothesisA random immigrant probing the far end of the design space -- long, thin arms with cutouts in a cheaper plastic -- to see if the material's flexibility could compensate for a leaner arm profile.

methodBuilt from scratch with a much longer, narrower arm, added cutouts, and printed in ASA plastic instead of carbon-fiber plate.

resultInvalid -- the arm overstressed in ASA. The material's lower stiffness couldn't handle the longer, cutout-weakened arm even with extra thickness. This reinforces that long-arm designs need carbon-fiber plate or a much heavier cross-section to survive. Worth testing next: rerun this exact geometry in carbon-fiber plate to see if material swap alone would have saved it.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.29
arm width	×0.60
arm waist	×0.77
arm thickness	4.9 mm
tip thickness	×0.69
arm cutouts	×0.32
front sweep	43.2°
rear sweep	42.7°
plate length	×1.25
plate width	×1.18
deck gap	41.9 mm
battery wedge	1.1°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	asa

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate de12136b9a6a

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm overstressed (petg)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	87.6 g
material	petg
born	generation 76 via immigrant

hypothesisAnother blind immigrant probing a heavier, high-sweep design point, testing whether extra arm thickness and material toughness could offset a larger, wedge-heavy frame.

methodBuilt from scratch with near-baseline arm length, a thicker arm, a steep battery wedge angle, wide sweep angles, and a different plastic material.

resultInvalid -- the arm overstressed. Even with added thickness, the steep battery-wedge torque combined with the material's modest strength margin was too much for this arm geometry. Teaches that this material needs either a wider arm waist or a lower wedge angle to survive. Worth testing next: rerun the same design in carbon-fiber plate to see if the material swap alone clears the stress limit.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.04
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×1.17
arm thickness	3.4 mm
tip thickness	×0.85
arm cutouts	×0.06
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	46.5°
plate length	×0.88
plate width	×1.09
deck gap	38.9 mm
battery wedge	6.3°
plate thickness	×1.41
material	petg

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate caf7425025efnew best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.774 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.2% better
scenario mean	3.559 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.429 Wh/km
frame mass	56.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 75 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents were near the top of the pack; this cross bets that a slightly larger plate paired with a shorter arm would shave a touch more mass without losing deck stiffness.

methodPlate length increased slightly while arm length was trimmed a notch shorter than either parent.

resultFitness hit 5.774, edging out both parents and becoming the NEW BEST-SO-FAR (previous 5.7747771414242575). Every scenario ticked down slightly, with storm still the largest single contributor at 4.43 — the shorter arm trims tip-mass moment while the larger plate holds deck stiffness, a good trade. Worth testing next: push arm length shorter still (toward x0.75) while holding this plate size.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.063	130.1	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.657	155.3	37.2°
crosswind	3.532	150.0	32.3°
gusty_light	3.411	144.9	31.5°
hot_thin	3.266	138.7	27.0°
storm	4.429	188.2	29.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.77
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.7°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	31.4 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 461576713f2a

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.783 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.0% better
scenario mean	3.565 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.437 Wh/km
frame mass	56.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 74 via crossover

hypothesisBets that narrowing arm width and steepening front sweep together on the champion line could trim drag further without the mass penalty seen in other thickness-focused attempts.

methodArm width narrowed from about 0.89x to 0.85x, front sweep steepened by half a degree, and deck gap tightened by roughly half a millimeter.

resultScored 5.783 — better than both parents and better than the old 5.786 mark, but arrives too late to be a new winner since best-so-far had already dropped to 5.775 via the plate-thickness mutation. Still a promising independent lever worth combining with the winning plate-thickness cut in a future cross.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.066	130.2	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.667	155.8	37.3°
crosswind	3.536	150.2	32.4°
gusty_light	3.415	145.1	31.7°
hot_thin	3.269	138.9	27.0°
storm	4.437	188.5	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.7°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	31.4 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a59a4dc1719e

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.784 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.0% better
scenario mean	3.565 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.437 Wh/km
frame mass	56.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 75 via crossover

hypothesisPairing two similarly strong parents bets on splitting the difference to find something marginally better than either.

methodThe genome came out almost unchanged from the stronger parent, with no meaningful shift beyond a restated plate width.

resultFitness came in at 5.784, landing almost exactly between the two parents and short of best-so-far — a wash that confirms this region of gene-space is flat around 5.78-5.79. Next: try mutating rear sweep, which has stayed pinned near 43.6-43.7° across the whole generation and may be an unexplored lever.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.064	130.2	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.664	155.7	37.2°
crosswind	3.540	150.4	32.4°
gusty_light	3.417	145.1	31.6°
hot_thin	3.268	138.8	27.0°
storm	4.437	188.5	29.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d33be0b1ff3e

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.784 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.0% better
scenario mean	3.566 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.438 Wh/km
frame mass	56.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 75 via crossover

hypothesisSame pairing idea as the previous cross but conservative — bet on an almost-unchanged blend to confirm the neighborhood is stable rather than to explore much.

methodGenes came out near-identical to both parents, with only a small shift in arm waist.

resultFitness landed at 5.784, matching a near-twin cross almost exactly and sitting just off best-so-far — another flat result confirming this gene neighborhood plateaus around 5.78. Next: treat this cluster of near-clone crosses as explored and redirect mutation budget toward rear sweep or tip thickness instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.065	130.2	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.664	155.7	37.2°
crosswind	3.540	150.4	32.4°
gusty_light	3.417	145.2	31.6°
hot_thin	3.269	138.9	27.0°
storm	4.438	188.5	29.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.44
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 4c43c65e16e2

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.788 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.9% better
scenario mean	3.568 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.440 Wh/km
frame mass	56.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 75 via crossover

hypothesis461576713f2a (5.783) was strong enough to self-pollinate; the bet is that a self-cross with small jitter on deck gap and waist would surface a nearby local improvement.

methodDeck gap widened by about 0.8mm, arm waist tightened slightly, and the material blend nudged marginally.

resultFitness landed at 5.788, slightly worse than the 5.783 parent — the self-cross with only jitter-level changes found nothing new, confirming the genome sits in a shallow local optimum along these axes. Next: apply a real mutation to 461576713f2a targeting arm width, a gene this generation's near-clones haven't seriously probed.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.068	130.3	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.669	155.9	37.3°
crosswind	3.540	150.4	32.4°
gusty_light	3.419	145.2	31.7°
hot_thin	3.271	139.0	27.0°
storm	4.440	188.6	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.43
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.7°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.2 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 72e5524ac039

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.788 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.9% better
scenario mean	3.568 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.441 Wh/km
frame mass	56.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 75 via crossover

hypothesis8dff7a249bfd held the incoming best-so-far mark; this cross bets that opening front sweep and adding light cutout mass-relief would trade a bit of battery-wedge angle for lower drag.

methodFront sweep opened by about 0.7°, a small arm cutout was introduced, deck gap tightened, and battery wedge angle was reduced.

resultFitness came in at 5.788, worse than both parents including the strong 8dff7a249bfd at 5.775. Every scenario nudged up slightly, suggesting the new cutout removed material from a load path rather than pure dead weight. Next: repeat the sweep and deck-gap change without the arm cutout to isolate whether sweep alone helps.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.069	130.4	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.670	155.9	37.3°
crosswind	3.536	150.2	32.4°
gusty_light	3.418	145.2	31.7°
hot_thin	3.273	139.0	27.0°
storm	4.441	188.7	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.77
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.02
front sweep	36.9°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	31.3 mm
battery wedge	0.7°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 147477ac7643

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.800 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.8% better
scenario mean	3.575 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.449 Wh/km
frame mass	57.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 75 via crossover

hypothesisSame bet as the prior cross — pull weak parent 752459a29c9d (5.801) up by mixing with stronger 461576713f2a, testing whether the pack has converged tightly enough that any recombination lands near the champion.

methodGenes came out near-identical to the parents, with only tiny shifts in arm waist, deck gap, and battery wedge — effectively no real recombination happened.

resultFitness came in at 5.8, again between the two parents and short of best-so-far 5.775. The near-identical genome is a sign the population has converged so tightly that crossover is reshuffling rather than exploring. Next: force larger gene deltas or raise mutation rate so crossovers stop producing near-clones.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.077	130.7	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.674	156.1	37.3°
crosswind	3.546	150.7	32.4°
gusty_light	3.426	145.6	31.6°
hot_thin	3.280	139.4	27.0°
storm	4.449	189.0	29.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.43
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	1.4°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 564452b9cc58

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.805 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.7% better
scenario mean	3.578 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.454 Wh/km
frame mass	57.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 75 via crossover

hypothesis452eeb990a01 lagged the pack at 5.801; crossing it with the stronger 461576713f2a bets that blending would pull the weaker parent's numbers up toward the champion's.

methodArm length trimmed slightly, deck gap tightened by about 0.2mm, with arm thickness and material carried over largely unchanged from the stronger parent.

resultFitness landed at 5.805, essentially matching the weak parent rather than inheriting the strong parent's 5.783 — the cross failed to pull the genome up. Since the visible gene tweaks were tiny, the real drag likely comes from other unlisted genes still carrying the weaker parent's baggage. Next: cross 461576713f2a with a mutation of itself rather than pairing it with weaker stock.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.075	130.6	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.679	156.3	37.3°
crosswind	3.551	150.9	32.4°
gusty_light	3.428	145.6	31.7°
hot_thin	3.280	139.3	27.0°
storm	4.454	189.2	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.77
arm width	×0.88
arm waist	×0.50
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.4°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	31.7 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 822d4919c468

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.810 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.6% better
scenario mean	3.580 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.458 Wh/km
frame mass	56.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 75 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing weak 452eeb990a01 (5.801) with the incoming best 8dff7a249bfd (5.775) bets that thinning the plate further would cut mass without losing what made the strong parent work.

methodPlate thickness reduced further, front sweep opened by about 0.5°, and arm waist relaxed to its loosest value in the generation.

resultFitness came in at 5.81, worse than both parents and the weakest crossover result of the batch. The thinner plate combined with the loosest arm waist likely cost stiffness the sweep change couldn't recover — storm rose to 4.46, among the highest here. Next: keep the thinner plate but pair it with a tighter arm waist (~x0.43) to see if that recovers the loss.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.074	130.6	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.687	156.7	37.6°
crosswind	3.554	151.0	32.5°
gusty_light	3.431	145.7	31.8°
hot_thin	3.279	139.3	27.1°
storm	4.458	189.4	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.51
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.9°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	31.9 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.60
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 5f0fcb0f352b

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.810 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.6% better
scenario mean	3.581 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.457 Wh/km
frame mass	58.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 74 via crossover

hypothesisPairs a weaker plateau bird with the line that produced the new champion, testing whether deck-gap and wedge recombination alone can lift the weaker parent's performance.

methodDeck gap widened slightly and battery wedge angle nudged up by about 0.1°.

resultCame in at 5.81, matching the weaker parent and missing the 5.775 best-so-far by a wide margin — deck-gap widening didn't help here. Reinforces that this generation's real lever was plate thickness, not deck gap. Next: apply the winning thickness cut onto this parent line directly.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.077	130.7	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.684	156.5	37.4°
crosswind	3.556	151.1	32.5°
gusty_light	3.431	145.8	31.7°
hot_thin	3.282	139.4	27.1°
storm	4.457	189.3	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	37.5 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.64
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d63f41b20cc5✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.822 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.5% better
scenario mean	3.588 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.467 Wh/km
frame mass	59.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 75 via designer

hypothesisThe designer is probing arm thickness directly, independent of the crossover pool, betting that 2.8mm combined with deep cutouts would recover some of the weight a thicker arm adds.

methodFresh design with arm thickness set to 2.8mm and arm cutouts far deeper (x0.12) than the crossover pool's near-zero cutouts.

resultFitness came in at 5.822, worse than best-so-far and worse than the designer's own 2.5mm probe. Even with deep cutouts to shed mass, the thicker arm still cost more than the cutouts saved, matching the earlier mutation candidate's finding that thickness above 2.5mm is a losing trade here. Next: test arm thickness between 2.5 and 2.8mm with the same deep cutouts to locate the actual crossover point.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.080	130.9	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.691	156.8	37.3°
crosswind	3.563	151.4	32.4°
gusty_light	3.438	146.1	31.6°
hot_thin	3.287	139.6	27.0°
storm	4.467	189.8	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.12
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×0.60
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 4f622701b563

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.865 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.8% better
scenario mean	3.615 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.501 Wh/km
frame mass	62.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 75 via mutation

hypothesisParent 87c8fa55a889 sat mid-pack at 5.786; this mutation bets that adding material margin to the arm and plate would buy some stiffness headroom against storm losses.

methodArm thickness increased from 2.5mm to 2.9mm, arm width widened slightly, and plate thickness increased, with arm cutouts left essentially at zero.

resultFitness worsened to 5.865, well off the parent's 5.786 and best-so-far 5.775 — the extra material added mass across every scenario without buying enough robustness back. This confirms the design is already past its thickness optimum for this arm/plate combination. Worth testing: hold the wider arm width but roll thickness back to 2.5mm to see if the width gain alone helps.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.103	131.8	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.718	158.0	37.4°
crosswind	3.592	152.6	32.5°
gusty_light	3.465	147.2	31.7°
hot_thin	3.311	140.7	27.1°
storm	4.501	191.2	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.9 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	31.9 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.66
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a979213f29d7✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.909 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.2% better
scenario mean	3.643 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.532 Wh/km
frame mass	65.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 75 via designer

hypothesisThe designer rounds out its arm-thickness sweep with a much heavier value, betting on the opposite extreme to bracket where the thickness optimum actually lies.

methodFresh design identical to the other designer probes except arm thickness set to 3.3mm, the thickest tested this generation.

resultFitness came in at 5.909, the worst result in the entire generation — every scenario rose, with storm reaching 4.53, the generation's highest. This closes out the designer's thickness sweep (2.5/2.8/3.3mm) with a clear conclusion that thinner is better within the range explored. Next: the designer should stop probing thickness upward and instead test below 2.5mm to find the lower structural limit.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.131	133.0	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.744	159.0	37.4°
crosswind	3.622	153.9	32.5°
gusty_light	3.491	148.3	31.7°
hot_thin	3.338	141.8	27.1°
storm	4.532	192.5	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	3.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×0.60
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate bff4bcb6264cnew best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.786 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.0% better
scenario mean	3.566 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.439 Wh/km
frame mass	56.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 74 via crossover

hypothesisA self-cross of the champion, checking whether the plate dimensions still have slack for a free gain via recombination alone, since the champion had been sitting flat at 5.786 for several generations.

methodGenes came out essentially identical to the champion, with plate length and width restated at the same values.

resultMatched at 5.786, registering as the new best-so-far by a razor-thin margin — more a resolution artifact than a genuine design change. This is a signal the champion sits on a very flat local optimum. The real breakthrough this generation came from directly attacking plate thickness, which this candidate left untouched.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.064	130.2	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.667	155.8	37.2°
crosswind	3.541	150.4	32.4°
gusty_light	3.417	145.2	31.6°
hot_thin	3.269	138.9	27.0°
storm	4.439	188.6	29.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 87c8fa55a889new best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.786 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.0% better
scenario mean	3.566 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.440 Wh/km
frame mass	56.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 73 via crossover

hypothesisWith 1f59e66ff16e sitting at the current best and b4fab6ab7227 close behind, this cross probed whether blending their arm and deck-gap proportions could inch past a plateau that has held for several generations.

methodNearly identical to the leading parent, with only a fractional adjustment to arm length carried through the cross.

result5.786 — a NEW WINNER, edging out the prior best of 5.787 by a hair. This confirms the population is converging tightly around this arm-length/width/deck-gap combination. Next worth a finer sweep of deck gap alone near 32mm to see if there's still room to trim storm-scenario drag.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.065	130.2	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.666	155.8	37.2°
crosswind	3.540	150.4	32.4°
gusty_light	3.418	145.2	31.7°
hot_thin	3.270	138.9	27.0°
storm	4.440	188.6	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 1f59e66ff16enew best when evaluated✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.787 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.0% better
scenario mean	3.567 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.441 Wh/km
frame mass	56.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 72 via designer

hypothesisBuilding on the same consensus arm/plate genome, the designer bet that deck gap — an axis the evolutionary crossovers hadn't pushed hard at the low end — could be shrunk substantially to cut mass/drag without sacrificing clearance.

methodDesigner used the standard consensus arm and plate genome but slashed deck gap from the typical ~37mm down to 32.0mm, leaving battery wedge and other genes at baseline.

resultFitness 5.787, a NEW WINNER — beating both the prior best-so-far (5.805568221651878) and the just-crowned 41259fd28583 (5.805), with gains across every scenario including the generation's best storm result (4.44). This validates deck gap as a productive, still-underexplored axis; worth testing an even tighter deck gap to find where clearance constraints start to bite.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.065	130.2	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.669	155.9	37.2°
crosswind	3.540	150.4	32.4°
gusty_light	3.418	145.2	31.6°
hot_thin	3.269	138.9	27.0°
storm	4.441	188.7	29.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 8e183647f728

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.789 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.9% better
scenario mean	3.568 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.441 Wh/km
frame mass	56.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 74 via crossover

hypothesisA near-clone cross of the champion, essentially probing whether tiny recombination noise near the current optimum can find a residual gain rather than betting on any deliberate design change.

methodGene changes were negligible — sweep angles and deck gap shifted by tenths of a degree or millimeter versus the champion parent.

resultScored 5.789, close to but not beating the 5.786 best-so-far. Shows the champion's immediate neighborhood is already tightly optimized; micro-jitter isn't enough to move it. Worth trying a deliberately larger perturbation, like a real plate-thickness cut, instead of noise-level tweaks.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.066	130.2	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.668	155.8	37.3°
crosswind	3.543	150.5	32.4°
gusty_light	3.419	145.3	31.7°
hot_thin	3.271	138.9	27.0°
storm	4.441	188.7	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 452eeb990a01

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.801 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.8% better
scenario mean	3.575 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.451 Wh/km
frame mass	57.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 74 via crossover

hypothesisPairs the reigning champion with a weaker plateau bird, testing whether loosening the champion's tight arm waist lets the weaker line's traits pull performance up.

methodLoosened the arm waist from a tight pinch to a wider one, and nudged the front sweep up by about 0.2°, keeping plate length as-is.

resultCame in at 5.801 — worse than the champion parent (5.786) though better than the weak parent (5.808), showing the waist loosening cost efficiency. Confirms a narrow waist is a real asset. Next: try the sweep bump alone with waist reverted to the champion's tighter setting.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.072	130.5	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.677	156.2	37.3°
crosswind	3.550	150.8	32.4°
gusty_light	3.426	145.5	31.6°
hot_thin	3.277	139.2	27.0°
storm	4.451	189.1	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.50
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.4°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	31.9 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 752459a29c9d

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.801 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.8% better
scenario mean	3.576 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.450 Wh/km
frame mass	57.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 74 via crossover

hypothesisAnother self-cross of the champion, this time probing whether a steeper battery wedge and a slight material-mix shift could squeeze out further gains on top of a tighter waist.

methodBattery wedge steepened from 1.0° to 1.4°, arm waist tightened slightly, arm thickness upticked marginally, and the material mix shifted within the same carbon-fiber-plate family.

resultScored 5.801, worse than the champion parent — the added arm thickness and steeper wedge cost more than the tighter waist saved. Reinforces that thickness increases, whether in arms or plates, tend to hurt this design. Next: retest the wedge/waist changes without the arm-thickness increase.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.077	130.7	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.675	156.1	37.3°
crosswind	3.547	150.7	32.4°
gusty_light	3.427	145.6	31.6°
hot_thin	3.281	139.4	27.0°
storm	4.450	189.1	29.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.43
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	1.4°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 44f028494322

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.802 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.8% better
scenario mean	3.576 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.451 Wh/km
frame mass	57.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 73 via crossover

hypothesisb0f1891a8f78 was a strong performer, so this cross tested whether trimming plate width slightly, borrowed from 58846fcec09d's side of the cross, could shave a little more mass off an already-competitive design.

methodNarrowed the plate width by about 1%, leaving everything else close to the b0f1891a8f78 parent's values.

result5.802, an improvement over both parents (5.806 and 5.813) though still short of the generation's new best of 5.786. This confirms plate-width trimming is a productive direction. Worth testing an even narrower plate width next to see where the gain plateaus or reverses.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.072	130.5	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.680	156.3	37.4°
crosswind	3.549	150.8	32.5°
gusty_light	3.426	145.5	31.7°
hot_thin	3.277	139.2	27.1°
storm	4.451	189.1	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	37.1 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 20264e3c8143

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.804 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.7% better
scenario mean	3.578 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.453 Wh/km
frame mass	57.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 74 via crossover

hypothesisCrosses two mid-plateau parents, betting that a modest plate thinning combined with a slight waist loosening might stack two plausible small gains.

methodPlate thickness trimmed slightly, arm waist loosened marginally, plate width nearly unchanged.

resultFlat at 5.804, nowhere near the new 5.775 best-so-far. The thickness cut here was much shallower than the mutation that actually won, suggesting the gain is threshold-sensitive. Worth testing a steeper thickness cut matching the winning mutation's magnitude.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.075	130.6	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.681	156.4	37.4°
crosswind	3.551	150.9	32.6°
gusty_light	3.428	145.6	31.7°
hot_thin	3.279	139.3	27.1°
storm	4.453	189.2	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.46
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	37.1 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×0.61
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 68bacd04c90b

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.804 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.7% better
scenario mean	3.578 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.453 Wh/km
frame mass	57.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 74 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents were mid-pack plateau birds sitting around 5.80-5.81; this cross bets that recombining their deck-gap, wedge-angle, and waist settings might shake loose a small joint improvement.

methodShrank the deck gap from about 37 mm to 36 mm, steepened the battery wedge from 0.9° to 1.4°, and tightened the arm waist slightly, while leaving plate length unchanged.

resultLanded at 5.804, essentially matching both parents and well short of the 5.786 best-so-far. The tighter waist likely helped a bit but was offset by the steeper wedge angle. Worth isolating: retest the tighter waist alone, holding wedge angle at the parent value.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.075	130.6	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.681	156.4	37.3°
crosswind	3.551	150.8	32.5°
gusty_light	3.428	145.6	31.7°
hot_thin	3.279	139.3	27.1°
storm	4.453	189.2	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.42
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	35.7 mm
battery wedge	1.4°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 4c5ab9ab38ea

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.804 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.7% better
scenario mean	3.578 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.454 Wh/km
frame mass	57.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 74 via crossover

hypothesisRecombines two similarly-performing plateau birds (~5.80 each), betting a slightly wider arm might add structural margin without a drag penalty.

methodArm width nudged up marginally from about 0.89x to 0.90x scale; all other genes stayed at parent values.

resultFlat at 5.804 versus both parents — the tiny width increase had no measurable effect either way. Suggests arm width is near-saturated at this scale; a larger step would be needed to see if it matters at all.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.073	130.6	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.683	156.5	37.4°
crosswind	3.551	150.9	32.5°
gusty_light	3.427	145.6	31.7°
hot_thin	3.278	139.3	27.1°
storm	4.454	189.2	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	37.1 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 1aa9e2f88eb9

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.810 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.6% better
scenario mean	3.582 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.457 Wh/km
frame mass	57.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 74 via crossover

hypothesisCrosses two below-plateau outliers, hoping combining their separate traits recovers competitiveness with the main line.

methodNear-identical genes to both parents, with arm waist loosened slightly and plate thickness bumped up a touch.

resultCame in at 5.81, matching the better parent but well behind the 5.786 best-so-far. The added plate thickness is a likely drag/mass penalty holding this line back. Next: retest with plate thickness pulled back toward the leaner champion setting.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.081	130.9	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.684	156.5	37.4°
crosswind	3.551	150.9	32.5°
gusty_light	3.431	145.8	31.7°
hot_thin	3.285	139.5	27.1°
storm	4.457	189.3	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.46
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	43.9°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.6 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×0.64
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 0b8f0887af28

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.811 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.6% better
scenario mean	3.582 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.458 Wh/km
frame mass	57.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 74 via crossover

hypothesisCrosses the champion with a weaker outlier, hoping the champion's leaner traits would dominate the blend and pull the result down near 5.786.

methodGenes came out nearly identical to the weaker parent — thicker plate, wider waist, wider deck gap — rather than inheriting the champion's leaner profile.

resultScored 5.811, essentially matching the weak parent and losing almost all of the champion's advantage. The crossover blended toward the weaker parent's thicker plate instead of the champion's efficient one. Next: bias crossover to inherit plate thickness specifically from the fitter parent.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.081	130.9	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.684	156.5	37.4°
crosswind	3.553	150.9	32.5°
gusty_light	3.432	145.8	31.7°
hot_thin	3.285	139.5	27.1°
storm	4.458	189.4	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.46
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	43.9°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.6 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.64
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 692e4aa73800

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.856 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.0% better
scenario mean	3.609 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.493 Wh/km
frame mass	62.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 74 via crossover

hypothesisBets that reinforcing arm thickness and shifting sweep angles could buy extra robustness for the storm scenario without much drag penalty.

methodArm thickness increased noticeably (2.5 mm to 2.8 mm), front sweep raised, deck gap widened, and both arm and plate width increased.

resultScored 5.856, the worst result in the generation, well behind both parents and the 5.775 best-so-far — the combined mass increase penalized every scenario, including storm, rather than helping it. Clear lesson: robustness gains should come from targeted geometry (e.g., local waist or cutout changes) rather than blanket thickening across multiple dimensions at once.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.097	131.6	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.718	157.9	37.5°
crosswind	3.586	152.4	32.6°
gusty_light	3.457	146.9	31.8°
hot_thin	3.304	140.4	27.1°
storm	4.493	190.9	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.77
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.43
arm thickness	2.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.5°
rear sweep	43.3°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	37.7 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 41259fd28583new best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.805 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.7% better
scenario mean	3.578 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.454 Wh/km
frame mass	58.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 72 via crossover

hypothesisb0f1891a8f78 (5.806) was already the strongest design in the pool; the bet was that a self-cross could resample its own genome for a slightly different combination of plate width, material, and arm waist that might refine it further.

methodSelf-crossover (the parent crossed with itself) raised plate width (×1.00→×1.02), adjusted the material fraction (0.07→0.10), tightened arm waist (×0.45→×0.42), and widened the deck gap slightly.

resultFitness 5.805 — a NEW WINNER, edging past the prior best-so-far of 5.805568221651878 with small improvements across every scenario, notably storm dropping to 4.45. The tightened arm waist combined with the plate-width bump seems to have found a slightly better stiffness-to-mass balance. Worth testing an even tighter arm waist while holding the rest fixed.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.074	130.6	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.683	156.5	37.4°
crosswind	3.552	150.9	32.6°
gusty_light	3.428	145.6	31.7°
hot_thin	3.279	139.3	27.1°
storm	4.454	189.2	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.42
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	37.3 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 811956359c17

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.808 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.7% better
scenario mean	3.580 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.456 Wh/km
frame mass	57.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 73 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents were solid but not leading candidates, so this cross bet that easing front sweep down and thinning the tip slightly, borrowed from opposite halves of the two lineages, might find a better lift/drag balance.

methodReduced front sweep slightly, thinned the arm tip by about 1%, tightened the deck gap by half a millimeter, and shifted the material blend fraction up.

result5.808, essentially tying its 1b211058c096 parent and falling short of the incumbent best. None of the small tweaks moved the needle either way. Worth isolating the front-sweep reduction alone next, since it's the largest single change here.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.077	130.7	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.683	156.5	37.3°
crosswind	3.551	150.9	32.4°
gusty_light	3.430	145.7	31.6°
hot_thin	3.281	139.4	27.0°
storm	4.456	189.3	29.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.86
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×0.99
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	43.2°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	36.6 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×0.64
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 32b85dc73294

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.809 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.6% better
scenario mean	3.581 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.457 Wh/km
frame mass	58.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 73 via crossover

hypothesisb0f1891a8f78 was one of the stronger performers in its lineage, so this cross tried marrying it with b4fab6ab7227's plate proportions to see if a slightly narrower, thicker plate could trim weight without sacrificing stiffness.

methodNarrowed plate width by about 1%, thickened the plate a touch, and kept the battery wedge essentially unchanged.

result5.809, close to but slightly worse than the better parent's 5.806. The width and thickness changes roughly cancelled each other out. Worth testing the narrower plate width alone, without the added thickness, since that's the more novel move here.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.078	130.8	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.684	156.5	37.3°
crosswind	3.553	151.0	32.5°
gusty_light	3.431	145.7	31.7°
hot_thin	3.282	139.4	27.1°
storm	4.457	189.3	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	37.1 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×0.64
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate aaf8c6434082

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.812 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.6% better
scenario mean	3.583 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.459 Wh/km
frame mass	57.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 73 via crossover

hypothesis1f59e66ff16e held the top spot, so this cross tested whether borrowing 1b211058c096's deck gap and material ratio could push the frontrunner slightly further without disturbing its arm geometry.

methodLowered the material blend fraction, widened the deck gap by about half a millimeter, and nudged arm waist and rear sweep up fractionally.

result5.812, worse than the leading parent's 5.787. The deck-gap widening and material shift moved away from the winning recipe rather than refining it. Worth testing the rear-sweep bump alone next, isolated from the deck-gap change.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.082	130.9	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.686	156.6	37.5°
crosswind	3.554	151.0	32.5°
gusty_light	3.432	145.8	31.7°
hot_thin	3.285	139.6	27.1°
storm	4.459	189.4	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.46
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.9°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.6 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.64
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate cd89f22ced20

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.814 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.6% better
scenario mean	3.583 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.462 Wh/km
frame mass	57.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 73 via crossover

hypothesisWith near-identical parents already close in genome, this cross was mostly a low-risk consolidation move to confirm the shared design region is stable rather than to chase a specific improvement.

methodGenes came through essentially unchanged from both parents; no meaningful recombination occurred.

result5.814, slightly worse than both parents and off the current best. As expected from a near-clone cross, little changed. This pairing isn't adding exploratory value — future crossovers should draw from more genetically distinct parents.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.078	130.8	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.693	156.9	37.5°
crosswind	3.553	150.9	32.5°
gusty_light	3.433	145.8	31.8°
hot_thin	3.283	139.5	27.1°
storm	4.462	189.5	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.86
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.6°
rear sweep	43.2°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.1 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×0.64
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate c16296af5014

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.815 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.6% better
scenario mean	3.584 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.462 Wh/km
frame mass	58.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 73 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents sat right at the fitness plateau near 5.79–5.81, so this cross bet on softening the battery placement and thickening the plate slightly to see if a slightly different balance point could shave off a touch more drag.

methodReduced the battery wedge angle by about a third of a degree, nudged the material blend fraction up slightly, and thickened the plate a hair while leaving width unchanged.

resultLanded at 5.815, worse than both parents and short of the incumbent best of 5.787. The extra plate thickness likely added mass without a proportional stiffness payoff. Worth testing whether reverting plate thickness alone recovers the parent's performance.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.078	130.8	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.691	156.8	37.4°
crosswind	3.554	151.0	32.6°
gusty_light	3.433	145.8	31.8°
hot_thin	3.283	139.5	27.1°
storm	4.462	189.6	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.46
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.6 mm
battery wedge	0.5°
plate thickness	×0.61
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 642a9dea6455

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.817 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.5% better
scenario mean	3.586 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.463 Wh/km
frame mass	58.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 73 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents were mid-pack performers around 5.82, so this cross tested whether tightening the arm waist further, combined with a steeper battery tilt, could unlock a leaner, lower-drag arm profile.

methodNarrowed the arm waist further, increased the battery wedge tilt noticeably, and nudged front sweep up slightly.

result5.817, essentially matching the better parent but not beating it or the current best. The added battery tilt likely cost more in storm drag than it saved elsewhere. Worth testing the waist tightening in isolation, holding battery wedge at the parent's original angle.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.083	131.0	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.690	156.8	37.3°
crosswind	3.557	151.1	32.4°
gusty_light	3.435	145.9	31.7°
hot_thin	3.287	139.6	27.1°
storm	4.463	189.6	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.41
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.3 mm
battery wedge	1.8°
plate thickness	×0.66
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 0fdf7610d67d

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.820 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.5% better
scenario mean	3.587 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.465 Wh/km
frame mass	58.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 73 via mutation

hypothesisA mutation off c7caf024b32a aimed to nudge an already-converged, mid-pack design with only minor perturbations, testing whether the surrounding region held any easy gains.

methodGenes came through nearly unchanged from the parent, with no significant single-gene shift.

result5.82, identical to the parent's fitness, confirming this is a flat region of the search space with no easy nearby improvement. Worth trying a larger mutation step in this same design next — e.g. a bigger deck-gap or battery-wedge swing — since micro-mutations here aren't finding anything new.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.084	131.0	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.690	156.8	37.4°
crosswind	3.560	151.2	32.5°
gusty_light	3.436	146.0	31.7°
hot_thin	3.289	139.7	27.1°
storm	4.465	189.7	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.52
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×0.99
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	34.8 mm
battery wedge	1.1°
plate thickness	×0.64
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 3d656bf1228d

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.822 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.5% better
scenario mean	3.589 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.467 Wh/km
frame mass	57.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 73 via crossover

hypothesisWith both parents tied at 5.82, this cross gambled on a much steeper battery wedge paired with a narrower arm to see if shifting weight distribution could unlock a small edge.

methodMore than doubled the battery wedge angle, narrowed the arm width noticeably, and tightened the deck gap slightly.

result5.822, essentially matching both parents but not improving on them. The aggressive battery-wedge increase didn't help despite the narrower arm. Worth testing the narrower arm width alone next, with the original shallower battery wedge.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.083	131.0	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.693	156.9	37.4°
crosswind	3.561	151.3	32.5°
gusty_light	3.438	146.1	31.7°
hot_thin	3.288	139.7	27.1°
storm	4.467	189.8	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.51
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×0.99
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	34.4 mm
battery wedge	2.3°
plate thickness	×0.64
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 3e80683d6279

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.823 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.4% better
scenario mean	3.589 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.467 Wh/km
frame mass	57.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 73 via mutation

hypothesisc7caf024b32a had settled around 5.82, so this mutation probed whether tightening the deck gap and shifting the material blend could squeeze out a small efficiency gain from an already-converged design.

methodShortened the deck gap by half a millimeter, increased the material blend fraction, and trimmed arm width fractionally.

result5.823, slightly worse than the parent. The material shift likely added mass or altered stiffness unfavorably. Worth testing the deck-gap tightening in isolation next, without touching the material blend.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.086	131.1	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.690	156.8	37.4°
crosswind	3.563	151.4	32.5°
gusty_light	3.439	146.1	31.7°
hot_thin	3.290	139.8	27.1°
storm	4.467	189.8	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.86
arm waist	×0.52
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×0.99
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	34.3 mm
battery wedge	1.1°
plate thickness	×0.64
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 3a80bbfc7f19

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.830 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.3% better
scenario mean	3.593 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.474 Wh/km
frame mass	59.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 73 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents lagged the leaders around 5.82, so this cross tried lengthening the arm slightly while easing rear sweep, betting that a longer, less-swept arm might trade drag for stability gains.

methodLengthened the arm by about 5%, eased rear sweep back a bit, lowered the material blend fraction, and added a touch of arm-cutout material removal.

result5.83, the weakest crossover result this generation, worse than both parents. Lengthening the arm while reducing sweep seems to add drag across all scenarios rather than trading it away. Worth testing rear-sweep reduction alone next, on the shorter, more sweep-optimized arm length instead of combining it with lengthening.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.084	131.0	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.702	157.3	37.6°
crosswind	3.566	151.5	32.6°
gusty_light	3.442	146.2	31.8°
hot_thin	3.290	139.8	27.1°
storm	4.474	190.1	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.82
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.44
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	35.9°
rear sweep	42.8°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.3 mm
battery wedge	1.3°
plate thickness	×0.66
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 4030fce718d2

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.938 Wh/km
vs baseline	0.7% worse
scenario mean	4.274 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.326 Wh/km
frame mass	144.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 73 via immigrant

hypothesisThis immigrant reset to stock-like proportions — full-scale arms, standard thickness — to inject fresh genetic diversity into a population that has converged tightly around a thin, scaled-down arm design.

methodReverted arm length, width, and waist to full scale and thickened the arm to 6mm, alongside stock-like sweep angles and a wider battery wedge.

result6.938, far worse than every crossover candidate and well off the best of 5.787. This confirms the converged thin-arm, swept design is genuinely doing the work — full-scale stock proportions carry too much mass across every scenario, especially storm. Immigrants should probably explore variations closer to the converged basin rather than full reversion.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.652	155.1	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.426	188.0	39.2°
crosswind	4.266	181.2	34.1°
gusty_light	4.082	173.4	32.8°
hot_thin	3.895	165.5	27.6°
storm	5.326	226.3	32.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×1.00
arm waist	×1.00
arm thickness	6.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.4°
rear sweep	36.2°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	29.8 mm
battery wedge	1.9°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 72a75c4ba49b

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	7.884 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.5% worse
scenario mean	4.855 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.059 Wh/km
frame mass	211.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 73 via immigrant

hypothesisA second immigrant, deliberately oversized and heavier than the stock baseline, was injected to test whether a bulkier, more overbuilt frame might trade weight for durability gains the sweep-optimized lineage isn't capturing.

methodScaled arm length up by a quarter, widened the plate substantially, thickened both arm and plate well beyond the population norm, and used a shallower rear sweep with a steeper battery wedge.

result7.884, the worst candidate of the generation and far off the best of 5.787. The extra bulk piles on mass in every scenario, confirming the converged lightweight, swept design is well ahead of any oversized alternative. Future immigrants should stay closer to the converged scale rather than testing extremes this far out.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	4.125	175.2	25.9°
cold_headwind	5.087	216.1	40.8°
crosswind	4.847	205.9	35.5°
gusty_light	4.615	196.0	33.8°
hot_thin	4.394	186.7	28.2°
storm	6.059	257.4	38.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.25
arm width	×1.02
arm waist	×1.07
arm thickness	7.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.6°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.18
plate width	×1.15
deck gap	29.5 mm
battery wedge	2.6°
plate thickness	×1.20
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate b0f1891a8f78new best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.806 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.7% better
scenario mean	3.578 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.454 Wh/km
frame mass	57.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 71 via crossover

hypothesisA self-cross of the reigning best-so-far parent, probing whether the plate-thickness lever that just paid off elsewhere could squeeze out yet more from an already-strong design.

methodCut plate thickness further to ×0.63 (from ×0.67), nudged the material blend (still carbon-fiber plate), lengthened the plate slightly to ×0.95, and zeroed out arm cutouts.

result5.806 — a NEW WINNER, beating both the 5.810 pre-generation best and the 5.808 mark just set moments earlier, with every scenario improving marginally including storm. This confirms plate thickness is the dominant remaining lever in the elite family and self-crosses on the champion still find gains. Worth testing: push plate thickness toward the deflection limit directly, below ×0.60, to map where this lever finally runs out.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.074	130.6	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.683	156.5	37.4°
crosswind	3.551	150.8	32.5°
gusty_light	3.428	145.6	31.7°
hot_thin	3.279	139.3	27.1°
storm	4.454	189.2	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.1 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 1b211058c096new best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.808 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.7% better
scenario mean	3.580 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.457 Wh/km
frame mass	57.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 71 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents track the elite family closely; this cross bets that cutting plate thickness further than either parent, while barely touching arm waist, is the remaining lever for real gains.

methodCut plate thickness to ×0.60 (from ×0.67 in one parent) and trimmed arm waist very slightly to ×0.46 (from ×0.47).

result5.808 — a NEW WINNER, edging past the prior best-so-far of 5.810 and beating both parents, with every scenario improving including storm. This shows the elite family still had headroom in plate thickness that hadn't been fully exploited. Worth testing: keep pushing plate thickness down toward ×0.55-0.58 to find where deflection or mass limits finally bite.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.075	130.6	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.688	156.7	37.4°
crosswind	3.550	150.8	32.6°
gusty_light	3.428	145.6	31.8°
hot_thin	3.279	139.3	27.1°
storm	4.457	189.3	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.46
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.6 mm
battery wedge	0.7°
plate thickness	×0.60
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 58846fcec09d

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.813 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.6% better
scenario mean	3.583 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.461 Wh/km
frame mass	57.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 72 via mutation

hypothesisParent ad8871a2dc40 (5.81) was already strong; the bet was that trimming arm width and plate thickness further, alongside sweep tweaks, could shave more mass without hurting the storm case.

methodMutation reduced arm width (0.89→0.86) and plate thickness (0.67→0.64), while increasing front sweep (36.2°→36.6°) and slightly reducing rear sweep (43.6°→43.2°).

resultFitness 5.813, marginally worse than the parent's 5.81 and short of the 5.806 best-so-far. The thinner plate/arm combo likely ate into structural margin without a compensating aero gain. Next worth isolating the sweep tweak from the plate-thickness cut to see which one caused the regression.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.078	130.8	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.692	156.8	37.5°
crosswind	3.552	150.9	32.5°
gusty_light	3.432	145.8	31.8°
hot_thin	3.282	139.4	27.1°
storm	4.461	189.5	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.86
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.6°
rear sweep	43.2°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.1 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×0.64
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 5f27ee552d29

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.817 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.5% better
scenario mean	3.585 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.463 Wh/km
frame mass	58.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 72 via crossover

hypothesisbe9815d40c08 (5.813) and 52ed0f4a3446 (5.821) suggested front sweep and cutout size were still worth fine-tuning; the bet was that pulling front sweep down and closing arm cutouts further would trim drag.

methodCrossover reduced front sweep (36.4°→35.9°) and closed arm cutouts further (×0.01→×0.00), leaving the rest of the genome close to the fitter parent.

resultFitness 5.817 — better than both parents but still short of the 5.806 best-so-far, with small consistent gains across every scenario. This is a promising direction; worth testing further front-sweep reduction below 35.9° combined with the fully-closed cutouts.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.079	130.8	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.690	156.8	37.4°
crosswind	3.559	151.2	32.5°
gusty_light	3.435	145.9	31.7°
hot_thin	3.284	139.5	27.1°
storm	4.463	189.6	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.44
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.9°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.3 mm
battery wedge	1.4°
plate thickness	×0.66
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate c7caf024b32a

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.820 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.5% better
scenario mean	3.587 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.465 Wh/km
frame mass	58.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 72 via crossover

hypothesiscc513547ce80 (5.836) was a weaker parent but carried a distinct material fraction and a tighter deck gap; the bet was that combining it with be9815d40c08 (5.813) could rescue the deck-gap idea while keeping the fitter parent's other traits.

methodCrossover pulled the deck gap in from 35.5mm to 34.8mm, shifted the material fraction, shortened arm length slightly (×0.79→×0.78), and nudged rear sweep up a touch.

resultFitness 5.82 — beats both parents (5.836 and 5.813) but still trails the 5.806 best-so-far. The tighter deck gap looks like the productive trait, since it rescued the weaker parent significantly. Worth testing an even tighter deck gap while holding the rest of the genome fixed.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.084	131.0	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.690	156.8	37.4°
crosswind	3.560	151.2	32.5°
gusty_light	3.436	146.0	31.7°
hot_thin	3.289	139.7	27.1°
storm	4.465	189.7	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.52
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×0.99
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	34.8 mm
battery wedge	1.1°
plate thickness	×0.64
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b4fab6ab7227

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.820 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.5% better
scenario mean	3.587 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.466 Wh/km
frame mass	58.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 72 via crossover

hypothesisWith 52ed0f4a3446 (5.821) and b0f1891a8f78 (5.806) both clustered near the front, the bet was that blending two nearly-identical, already-fit designs would converge toward a slightly better compromise.

methodCrossover produced genes almost indistinguishable from both parents, inheriting essentially the same arm/plate geometry with only fractional sweep and deck-gap adjustments.

resultFitness 5.82 sits between the parents but worse than the fitter one (5.806) and the 5.806 best-so-far, showing that averaging near-identical designs doesn't create new headroom. The population looks converged here; a larger deliberate perturbation (e.g. deck gap) is more likely to help than micro-blends.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.082	130.9	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.695	157.0	37.4°
crosswind	3.558	151.2	32.6°
gusty_light	3.436	146.0	31.8°
hot_thin	3.287	139.6	27.1°
storm	4.466	189.7	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.7 mm
battery wedge	0.7°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 52ed0f4a3446

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.821 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.5% better
scenario mean	3.587 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.466 Wh/km
frame mass	58.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 71 via crossover

hypothesisA self-cross of the same elite parent, probing plate thickness and material mix as a fine-grained refinement of an already-strong design.

methodCut plate thickness further to ×0.63 (from ×0.66) and nudged the material-blend gene slightly, still resolving to carbon-fiber plate.

result5.821 — a small improvement over the 5.83 parent, though still short of the 5.810 best-so-far, with every scenario shaving a hair. This reinforces that the family still has slack in plate thickness to exploit. Worth testing: push plate thickness even lower to find the structural floor.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.082	130.9	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.695	157.0	37.4°
crosswind	3.558	151.2	32.6°
gusty_light	3.436	146.0	31.8°
hot_thin	3.287	139.6	27.1°
storm	4.466	189.7	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.7 mm
battery wedge	0.7°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 294044197658

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.824 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.4% better
scenario mean	3.589 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.469 Wh/km
frame mass	59.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 72 via crossover

hypothesisParents 464b4c982fdb (5.82) and be9815d40c08 (5.813) were solid but plateaued; the bet was that a bigger battery-wedge angle plus slightly larger plates might rebalance weight distribution for a gain.

methodCrossover raised battery wedge (0.6°→1.1°), nudged plate width (×1.00→×1.01) and plate length (×0.94→×0.95) up, and trimmed tip thickness slightly (×1.00→×0.99).

resultFitness 5.824, worse than both parents and the 5.806 best-so-far — the wedge and plate-size increase added drag across every scenario rather than improving balance. Worth testing a much smaller wedge increment to find if a mild bump helps where this large one didn't.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.083	131.0	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.695	157.0	37.4°
crosswind	3.563	151.3	32.5°
gusty_light	3.438	146.1	31.7°
hot_thin	3.288	139.7	27.1°
storm	4.469	189.8	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.44
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×0.99
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.4°
rear sweep	43.3°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	37.4 mm
battery wedge	1.1°
plate thickness	×0.66
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 39bd8eeb7f1c

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.827 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.4% better
scenario mean	3.591 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.472 Wh/km
frame mass	59.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 72 via crossover

hypothesisbe9815d40c08 (5.813) and ad8871a2dc40 (5.81) were both near the top; the bet was that a thicker arm section could add storm robustness without much mass penalty.

methodCrossover increased arm thickness (2.5mm→2.6mm) and plate thickness (×0.66→×0.67), alongside a larger jump in battery wedge angle.

resultFitness 5.827, worse than both parents and the 5.806 best-so-far; the thicker arm didn't pay for its added mass, with storm (4.47) no better than peers. Next idea: test the arm-thickness bump alone, without the plate-thickness and wedge changes, to see if it's neutral or actively harmful.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.084	131.0	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.697	157.1	37.4°
crosswind	3.565	151.4	32.5°
gusty_light	3.441	146.2	31.7°
hot_thin	3.290	139.8	27.1°
storm	4.472	190.0	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.44
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.4°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.4 mm
battery wedge	1.3°
plate thickness	×0.67
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 3bbb3e0e5662

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.835 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.3% better
scenario mean	3.597 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.477 Wh/km
frame mass	60.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 72 via crossover

hypothesisParents 8980827c3c28 (5.826) and d4d7c6c43560 (5.82) were mid-pack; the bet was that a thicker plate paired with a thinner tip could redistribute stiffness for a net efficiency gain.

methodCrossover increased plate thickness substantially (×0.66→×0.71), reduced tip thickness (×0.99→×0.96), narrowed plate length while widening plate width, and tightened the deck gap slightly.

resultFitness 5.835, worse than both parents and the 5.806 best-so-far — the plate got noticeably heavier with no scenario showing a compensating benefit, storm and crosswind both rose. This suggests plate thickness is already near its optimum; worth testing a much milder plate-thickness bump in isolation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.091	131.3	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.701	157.2	37.4°
crosswind	3.570	151.7	32.5°
gusty_light	3.445	146.4	31.7°
hot_thin	3.296	140.0	27.1°
storm	4.477	190.2	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×0.96
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.92
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	37.2 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 21d55c9ee7a6

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.843 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.2% better
scenario mean	3.601 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.484 Wh/km
frame mass	59.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 72 via crossover

hypothesisParents e5b4e85a44a9 (5.823) and 52ed0f4a3446 (5.821) were both stuck near the plateau; the bet was that pushing sweep angles and deck spacing further out might unlock a bit more efficiency margin.

methodCrossover blended the two parents, increasing rear sweep (43.6°→44.1°) and front sweep (36.2°→36.6°), widening the deck gap (37.4→37.9mm), and nudging the arm width multiplier up (0.92→0.93).

resultLanded at 5.843, worse than both parents and well off the 5.806 best-so-far; the added sweep and gap apparently cost more in drag/weight than they returned, visible across storm (4.48) and crosswind. Worth testing the deck-gap widening in isolation, without the sweep increases, to see which change actually hurt.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.089	131.2	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.711	157.6	37.6°
crosswind	3.576	151.9	32.6°
gusty_light	3.450	146.5	31.9°
hot_thin	3.295	140.0	27.1°
storm	4.484	190.5	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.93
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.6°
rear sweep	44.1°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.9 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.66
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate c1f4b5cb356e✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.854 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.0% better
scenario mean	3.610 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.489 Wh/km
frame mass	57.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 72 via designer

hypothesisWith arm geometry converged near the population consensus (×0.78 length, ×0.89 width, ×0.45 waist), the designer's bet here was specifically about battery placement — testing whether a much steeper battery-wedge angle could improve weight distribution.

methodDesigner used the standard consensus arm/plate genome but set battery wedge to 9.5°, a huge jump from the typical ~0.9° seen elsewhere in the population.

resultFitness 5.854, worse than the 5.805 best-so-far and worse than the typical ~5.81 population fitness at this genome baseline — the steep wedge angle actively hurts rather than helps. This rules out large wedge angles as productive; worth testing small increments (1–3°) to find a shallower sweet spot.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.104	131.9	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.720	158.0	37.5°
crosswind	3.584	152.2	32.8°
gusty_light	3.457	146.8	31.9°
hot_thin	3.306	140.4	27.2°
storm	4.489	190.7	29.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.1 mm
battery wedge	9.5°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate a479f2c748ae

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.860 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.9% better
scenario mean	3.611 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.497 Wh/km
frame mass	61.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 72 via crossover

hypothesisb0f1891a8f78 (5.806) was strong but 2ab6adb6cced (5.858) was weak; the bet was that borrowing the weaker parent's wider arm and steeper rear sweep might add useful stiffness worth the trade.

methodCrossover widened arm width (×0.92→×0.95), tightened arm waist slightly, raised battery wedge (0.4°→0.6°), and widened the deck gap slightly (37.9→38.1mm).

resultFitness 5.86, worse than both parents and the 5.806 best-so-far — the widened arm and wedge bump compounded rather than offset the weak parent's issues, making this the worst performer in the batch. Crossing a strong performer with a much weaker one is risky here; next worth pairing b0f1891a8f78 with a closer-fitness partner instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.099	131.7	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.722	158.1	37.6°
crosswind	3.584	152.3	32.6°
gusty_light	3.459	146.9	31.9°
hot_thin	3.306	140.4	27.2°
storm	4.497	191.1	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.95
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	44.2°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	38.1 mm
battery wedge	0.6°
plate thickness	×0.69
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 7abd5ff3fb98✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.030 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.4% better
scenario mean	3.714 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.630 Wh/km
frame mass	69.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 72 via designer

hypothesisThe designer wanted to test whether the population had over-optimized toward fragility, hedging with a much heavier-duty arm as a bet that more structural margin would pay off in the storm scenario.

methodDesigner specified a fresh candidate (no parent) with a wider arm (×1.05), a nearly-uncut waist (×0.95), a thicker arm cross-section (2.8mm), and a substantial arm-cutout allowance (×0.22).

resultFitness 6.03, far worse than the 5.805 best-so-far and the weakest design of the generation — the heavier arm cost far more across every scenario than any storm robustness it bought. This confirms the population's lightweight-arm direction is correct; the designer's next bet should dial the safety margin back sharply rather than jumping to near-solid arms.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.178	135.0	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.844	163.3	38.5°
crosswind	3.689	156.7	33.3°
gusty_light	3.555	151.0	32.3°
hot_thin	3.391	144.1	27.4°
storm	4.630	196.7	29.7°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×1.05
arm waist	×0.95
arm thickness	2.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.22
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.1 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate ad8871a2dc40new best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.810 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.6% better
scenario mean	3.581 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.458 Wh/km
frame mass	58.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 70 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing e5b4e85a44a9 (the reigning best) with 70471228a0b9 bet that a slightly narrower arm combined with a tightened deck gap and marginally thicker plate could shave weight without sacrificing storm-scenario margin.

methodTrimmed arm width by about 3%, tightened deck gap by roughly 0.3mm, and thickened the plate very slightly (about 1.5%).

result5.81 — a NEW WINNER, beating the prior best-so-far of 5.823 and both parents across every scenario. The combined narrower-arm and tighter-deck-gap package appears to cut drag and weight together without costing storm robustness. Worth pushing arm width narrower still next generation to find where the trade-off breaks.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.078	130.8	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.686	156.6	37.3°
crosswind	3.553	150.9	32.5°
gusty_light	3.431	145.8	31.7°
hot_thin	3.283	139.5	27.1°
storm	4.458	189.4	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.1 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×0.67
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate be9815d40c08

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.813 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.6% better
scenario mean	3.583 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.461 Wh/km
frame mass	58.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 71 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing a solid elite parent with a weaker outlier, betting that raising the battery wedge toward the outlier's value could rebalance load without inheriting its other weaknesses.

methodRaised battery wedge to 1.3° (from 0.9°), keeping arm thickness, plate width, and arm waist essentially unchanged from the parents.

result5.813 — better than both parents but not enough to beat the 5.808 best-so-far already set earlier this generation. The wedge increase trimmed storm cost slightly, but less than the plate-thickness cuts elsewhere in the pack. Worth testing: apply this wedge bump on top of the ×0.60 plate thickness to see if the two stack additively.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.078	130.7	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.688	156.7	37.4°
crosswind	3.556	151.1	32.5°
gusty_light	3.433	145.8	31.7°
hot_thin	3.283	139.5	27.1°
storm	4.461	189.5	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.44
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.4°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.3 mm
battery wedge	1.3°
plate thickness	×0.66
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d4d7c6c43560

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.820 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.5% better
scenario mean	3.588 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.466 Wh/km
frame mass	59.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 70 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing e5b4e85a44a9 with 70471228a0b9, similar to the eventual winner, tested whether a narrower arm and adjusted front sweep alone could match that recipe without the deck-gap tightening.

methodTrimmed arm width by about 2% and nudged front sweep up by 0.1 degrees, leaving deck gap close to the wider parent's value.

result5.82, an improvement over both parents but arriving after ad8871a2dc40 had already claimed best-so-far at 5.81, so it doesn't overtake. Confirms narrower arm width is part of the winning direction, but skipping the deck-gap tightening left it short — worth grafting this front-sweep tweak onto the new champion next.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.082	130.9	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.693	156.9	37.4°
crosswind	3.561	151.3	32.5°
gusty_light	3.437	146.0	31.7°
hot_thin	3.287	139.7	27.1°
storm	4.466	189.7	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.44
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.3°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.4 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×0.66
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 464b4c982fdb

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.820 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.5% better
scenario mean	3.587 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.466 Wh/km
frame mass	59.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 71 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents are near the elite front; this cross bets that dialing battery wedge down and rear sweep back slightly would trim a bit more storm cost.

methodReduced battery wedge to 0.6° (from 0.9°) and pulled rear sweep back to 43.2° (from 43.6°), keeping arm waist essentially unchanged.

resultLanded at 5.82, matching its better parent but not improving on it or the 5.810 best-so-far — storm cost held flat, suggesting this gene pair is near a local optimum. Worth testing: combine this wedge trim with the plate-thickness cut that worked for the generation's eventual winner.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.084	131.0	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.693	156.9	37.4°
crosswind	3.557	151.1	32.5°
gusty_light	3.437	146.0	31.8°
hot_thin	3.288	139.7	27.1°
storm	4.466	189.7	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.44
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.4°
rear sweep	43.2°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.4 mm
battery wedge	0.6°
plate thickness	×0.66
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate e5b4e85a44a9new best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.823 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.4% better
scenario mean	3.589 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.468 Wh/km
frame mass	59.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 69 via crossover

hypothesisWith 70471228a0b9 holding the record at 5.830 and b9875b5864b2 close behind at 5.837, the bet was that combining a narrower arm-waist trend with a tighter deck gap could shave more weight and drag without crossing into structural risk.

methodCrossover of the two parents narrowed the arm waist further, nudged the material blend, tightened the deck gap, and pushed rear sweep and battery wedge up slightly.

result5.823 — a NEW WINNER, edging out the previous best of 5.830 with small gains across every scenario, most notably storm. The narrower waist plus tighter deck gap combo seems to trim mass without hurting drag; next worth pushing arm waist even narrower while watching for the resonance/strength wall that killed this generation's immigrant candidate.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.084	131.0	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.694	156.9	37.4°
crosswind	3.562	151.3	32.5°
gusty_light	3.438	146.1	31.7°
hot_thin	3.289	139.7	27.1°
storm	4.468	189.8	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.4 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×0.66
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 8980827c3c28

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.826 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.4% better
scenario mean	3.591 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.471 Wh/km
frame mass	59.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 71 via crossover

hypothesisBetting that widening the plate slightly while shortening its length could redistribute mass more efficiently than either parent alone.

methodWidened plate to ×1.02 (from ×1.00), shortened plate length to ×0.92 (from ×0.94), and trimmed tip thickness to ×0.99 (from ×1.00).

result5.826 — worse than the better parent and off the new 5.806 best-so-far. The length/width trade-off didn't pay off, hinting plate shape is already near-optimal here and the real gains this generation came from thickness, not footprint. Worth testing: shift mutation pressure away from plate length/width and toward thickness and material blend, where the biggest wins are landing.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.083	131.0	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.696	157.0	37.4°
crosswind	3.565	151.4	32.5°
gusty_light	3.440	146.2	31.7°
hot_thin	3.289	139.7	27.1°
storm	4.471	189.9	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×0.99
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.92
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	37.8 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×0.66
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d321c7b789b2

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.826 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.4% better
scenario mean	3.591 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.471 Wh/km
frame mass	59.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 71 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents are elite; this cross bets that a marginally tighter deck gap alone, everything else held at baseline, would give an incremental gain.

methodTightened deck gap to 37.4mm (from 37.6mm), leaving every other gene essentially identical to the parents.

result5.826 — between the two parents but not better than either, off the 5.810 best-so-far. The deck-gap tweak alone was too small to matter, suggesting this gene is already well-optimized here. Worth testing: pair small deck-gap moves with the plate-thickness cuts that are showing real gains instead of probing it alone.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.085	131.1	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.698	157.1	37.4°
crosswind	3.562	151.3	32.5°
gusty_light	3.440	146.1	31.7°
hot_thin	3.290	139.8	27.1°
storm	4.471	189.9	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.4 mm
battery wedge	0.7°
plate thickness	×0.66
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 7d2b2deb1c88

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.828 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.4% better
scenario mean	3.591 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.473 Wh/km
frame mass	59.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 70 via crossover

hypothesisCombining 70471228a0b9 and fd9db8a3f7d2 tested whether tightening deck gap and rear sweep together would yield a cleaner aerodynamic package.

methodShrank the deck gap by about 1.3mm and trimmed the rear sweep angle by roughly 0.3 degrees.

result5.828, essentially matching the better parent but not beating best-so-far (5.823). The near-miss suggests the deck-gap/rear-sweep combo is a promising direction — worth pushing deck gap further down in a follow-up mutation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.082	130.9	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.700	157.2	37.4°
crosswind	3.564	151.4	32.5°
gusty_light	3.441	146.2	31.7°
hot_thin	3.288	139.7	27.1°
storm	4.473	190.0	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.3°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	36.3 mm
battery wedge	0.7°
plate thickness	×0.67
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate cc513547ce80

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.836 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.2% better
scenario mean	3.597 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.479 Wh/km
frame mass	58.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 71 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing with the then-best-so-far parent to see if borrowing its narrower arm width and shorter deck gap could push past the frontier.

methodNarrowed arm width to ×0.87 (from ×0.92), widened arm waist to ×0.51 (from ×0.47), tightened deck gap to 35.5mm, and increased battery wedge to 1.1° (from 0.7°).

result5.836 — worse than both parents, missing the 5.810 best-so-far; the larger battery wedge combined with the widened waist likely undid the gains from the narrower arm and tighter deck gap. Worth testing: retry the narrower-arm/tighter-deck-gap combo but hold battery wedge closer to the stronger parent's value.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.087	131.1	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.707	157.5	37.7°
crosswind	3.571	151.7	32.6°
gusty_light	3.445	146.4	31.9°
hot_thin	3.292	139.9	27.1°
storm	4.479	190.3	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.51
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.3°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	35.5 mm
battery wedge	1.1°
plate thickness	×0.64
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 2ab6adb6cced

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.858 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.9% better
scenario mean	3.610 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.496 Wh/km
frame mass	61.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 71 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents sit just off the elite front; this cross bets that pairing a longer rear sweep with a thicker plate could shave more mass without tripping structural limits.

methodShrank plate length slightly, swept the rear arm back further (44.2° vs 43.1°), and thickened the plate a touch while nudging plate width up marginally.

resultCame in at 5.858, worse than both parents and off the 5.810 best-so-far — the extra rear sweep pushed storm cost up without any offsetting savings, suggesting rear sweep is already past its efficient point in this family. Worth testing: pull rear sweep back toward 43° while keeping the plate-thickness bump isolated.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.100	131.7	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.722	158.1	37.6°
crosswind	3.581	152.1	32.6°
gusty_light	3.458	146.9	31.9°
hot_thin	3.306	140.4	27.2°
storm	4.496	191.0	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	44.2°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	37.9 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.69
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 6a365a0047f0

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.859 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.9% better
scenario mean	3.611 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.496 Wh/km
frame mass	60.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 71 via mutation

hypothesisTesting whether lengthening the arm and easing the front sweep could cut structural mass further from an already strong parent.

methodGrew arm length to ×0.82 (from ×0.78), relaxed front sweep to 35.8° (from 36.2°), and trimmed battery wedge to 0.8° (from 0.9°).

result5.859 — worse than the parent and off the 5.810 best-so-far, with every scenario ticking up slightly. Longer arms in this family add more weight penalty than they save in drag when paired with a relaxed front sweep. Worth testing: revert arm length toward ×0.78 and isolate just the front-sweep change.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.097	131.6	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.725	158.3	37.7°
crosswind	3.584	152.3	32.7°
gusty_light	3.458	146.9	31.9°
hot_thin	3.303	140.3	27.2°
storm	4.496	191.0	29.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.82
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	35.8°
rear sweep	43.4°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.4 mm
battery wedge	0.8°
plate thickness	×0.66
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 55e0bf9fcd3f

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.952 Wh/km
vs baseline	1.0% worse
scenario mean	4.283 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.338 Wh/km
frame mass	143.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 71 via immigrant

hypothesisA fresh random immigrant meant to inject diversity against the converging elite cluster, testing an untried arm/plate proportion set for a new basin.

methodRandom draw with near-baseline arm scaling but much thicker arms (5.8mm vs the elite's 2.5mm), a more front-loaded sweep, the largest deck gap seen this gen, and a bigger battery wedge.

result6.952 — over a full Wh/km worse than the elite pack, confirming thick arms and a wide deck gap are a dead zone relative to the current lineage; the extra material mass isn't buying enough aerodynamic payoff. Worth testing: bias future immigrant sampling toward thinner arms and tighter deck gaps closer to what's already winning.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.654	155.2	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.449	189.0	39.5°
crosswind	4.273	181.5	34.2°
gusty_light	4.088	173.7	32.9°
hot_thin	3.897	165.5	27.7°
storm	5.338	226.8	33.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.01
arm width	×1.02
arm waist	×1.02
arm thickness	5.8 mm
tip thickness	×0.99
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.2°
rear sweep	35.7°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	29.0 mm
battery wedge	2.5°
plate thickness	×1.02
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate ed6efe5dece0

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pla_plus)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	102.2 g
material	pla_plus
born	generation 71 via immigrant

hypothesisAnother diversity injection, betting a lighter pla_plus material with longer, thinner arms and an aggressive sweep could open a new efficient region.

methodRandom draw with arm length ×1.18, a large arm-cutout fraction, aggressive front/rear sweep, a tight deck gap, and pla_plus material instead of the elite family's carbon-fiber plate.

resultInvalid — killed by arm tip deflection, a structural failure from combining pla_plus's lower stiffness with long arms and heavy cutouts. This shows pla_plus needs shorter arms or less aggressive cutout removal to survive the deflection check. Worth testing: retry a pla_plus immigrant with arm length capped near ×1.0 and near-zero cutouts.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.18
arm width	×0.88
arm waist	×0.90
arm thickness	4.7 mm
tip thickness	×0.98
arm cutouts	×0.11
front sweep	42.9°
rear sweep	46.2°
plate length	×1.23
plate width	×1.16
deck gap	24.9 mm
battery wedge	1.8°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	pla_plus

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 8072d6ac6af6

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.829 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.4% better
scenario mean	3.593 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.473 Wh/km
frame mass	59.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 70 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two near-best siblings (fd9db8a3f7d2 and e5b4e85a44a9) was a bet that combining their arm-shortening and plate-width traits could edge past the current leader.

methodBlended the two parents' arm length and plate width, landing almost exactly on the values both parents already shared.

resultCame in at 5.829, worse than the better parent (5.823) and short of best-so-far. The near-identical blend shows this pairing had already converged with little diversity left to exploit. Worth crossing with a more distant lineage to reintroduce variation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.087	131.2	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.698	157.1	37.4°
crosswind	3.565	151.4	32.6°
gusty_light	3.441	146.2	31.8°
hot_thin	3.293	139.9	27.1°
storm	4.473	190.0	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.6 mm
battery wedge	0.7°
plate thickness	×0.67
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 70471228a0b9new best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.830 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.3% better
scenario mean	3.593 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.474 Wh/km
frame mass	59.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 67 via crossover

hypothesisParents were both hovering right at the plateau ceiling (5.839, 5.841); this cross explores whether nudging rear sweep up and adding a touch of battery wedge, paired with a shorter plate, could finally break through.

methodShortened the plate to ~0.94x (from ~0.97x), increased battery wedge to 0.7° (from 0.4°), and increased rear sweep to 43.6° (from 43.1°); plate width left unchanged.

result5.83 — a NEW WINNER, improving on the prior best-so-far of 5.839. Every scenario ticked down slightly including storm (4.47), suggesting the rear-sweep/battery-wedge combo trims losses broadly rather than trading one scenario for another. Worth testing whether pushing rear sweep further (44°+) at this same wedge angle keeps compounding the gain.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.087	131.1	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.700	157.2	37.4°
crosswind	3.564	151.4	32.5°
gusty_light	3.442	146.2	31.8°
hot_thin	3.292	139.9	27.1°
storm	4.474	190.1	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.6 mm
battery wedge	0.7°
plate thickness	×0.66
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 59c6df74bc54

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.830 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.3% better
scenario mean	3.593 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.474 Wh/km
frame mass	59.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 70 via mutation

hypothesisA conservative mutation of 70471228a0b9 to check whether the current leader lineage sits on a flat, robust plateau near its optimum.

methodNo meaningful change from the parent — genes held within noise.

result5.83, matching the parent almost exactly and confirming a flat plateau in this genome region. Doesn't beat best-so-far. Exploration should shift to a different gene axis, such as sweep angles, rather than micro-mutating this lineage further.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.087	131.2	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.700	157.2	37.4°
crosswind	3.564	151.4	32.5°
gusty_light	3.442	146.2	31.7°
hot_thin	3.293	139.9	27.1°
storm	4.474	190.1	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.6 mm
battery wedge	0.7°
plate thickness	×0.66
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a68b1231947f

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.836 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.3% better
scenario mean	3.597 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.478 Wh/km
frame mass	60.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 70 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing 70471228a0b9 with e5b4e85a44a9 bet that a slightly wider arm would add stiffness for crosswind and storm scenarios without much drag penalty.

methodWidened arm width by about 3% relative to the parent baseline, other genes unchanged.

result5.836, worse than both parents; the wider arm's extra frontal area and mass outweighed any stiffness gain, with hot_thin and storm both ticking up. Arm width looks to already sit near its efficient minimum — better to hold it and vary waist taper instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.089	131.2	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.704	157.4	37.5°
crosswind	3.568	151.6	32.6°
gusty_light	3.445	146.4	31.8°
hot_thin	3.295	140.0	27.1°
storm	4.478	190.2	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.95
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.7 mm
battery wedge	0.7°
plate thickness	×0.66
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 37c6e50512f9

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.837 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.2% better
scenario mean	3.597 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.479 Wh/km
frame mass	60.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 70 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing 70471228a0b9 with e5b4e85a44a9 bet that a slightly longer plate would improve the stiffness-versus-efficiency trade-off.

methodStretched plate length about 1% beyond the shared parent baseline, leaving everything else close to parent values.

result5.837, worse than both parents and best-so-far; the small plate stretch added weight without payoff, visible as a small uptick across every scenario. Suggests plate length is near a local optimum here — better to hold it fixed and vary deck gap instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.089	131.2	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.704	157.4	37.4°
crosswind	3.570	151.7	32.6°
gusty_light	3.446	146.4	31.8°
hot_thin	3.295	140.0	27.1°
storm	4.479	190.3	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.7 mm
battery wedge	0.7°
plate thickness	×0.66
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 4af79ef31726

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.838 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.2% better
scenario mean	3.598 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.480 Wh/km
frame mass	60.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 69 via crossover

hypothesisTwo near-best parents (8ac4c8e23d62 at 5.838 and 70471228a0b9 at 5.83) were essentially the same slender-arm, tight-waist design; recombining them tested whether blending could close the tiny gap between siblings.

methodCrossover of two nearly identical genomes produced essentially the same slender, deeply-waisted arm layout, thin carbon plate, and deck gap — no meaningful gene shift.

resultLanded at 5.838, matching the weaker parent and missing the 5.830 best-so-far; with parents this close, crossover just resampled noise rather than finding new structure. Worth pairing this lineage with a genuinely different one, e.g. this generation's winner, instead of another near-twin cross.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.089	131.2	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.706	157.4	37.5°
crosswind	3.569	151.6	32.6°
gusty_light	3.446	146.4	31.8°
hot_thin	3.295	140.0	27.1°
storm	4.480	190.3	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.1°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.9 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.66
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate ca8835cab2a6

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.844 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.1% better
scenario mean	3.602 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.483 Wh/km
frame mass	60.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 70 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing e5b4e85a44a9 with a weaker sibling (4af79ef31726) bet that a thicker plate paired with a tighter deck gap would offset the weaker parent's plate flex.

methodTightened deck gap by roughly 1.4mm while thickening the plate by about 8%.

result5.844, the worst result in this batch and worse than both parents; the added plate mass likely outweighed any flex savings. Teaches that plate thickening isn't paying off here — next worth testing a thinner plate paired with just the tighter deck gap.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.095	131.5	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.706	157.4	37.3°
crosswind	3.576	151.9	32.5°
gusty_light	3.451	146.6	31.7°
hot_thin	3.301	140.2	27.1°
storm	4.483	190.5	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	36.0 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate fc371fd17d63

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.846 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.1% better
scenario mean	3.602 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.486 Wh/km
frame mass	60.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 70 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing a weaker candidate (3270363f6593) with 70471228a0b9 bet that its plate proportions plus a slightly thicker plate would still be competitive.

methodThickened the plate by about 1.5% and nudged rear sweep up by 0.2 degrees, keeping plate width and length from the weaker parent.

result5.846, worse than both parents and best-so-far; inheriting too much of the weaker parent's plate geometry outweighed the small plate-thickness gain. Teaches this weaker lineage isn't worth crossing further — next worth pairing 70471228a0b9 with the new champion instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.093	131.4	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.711	157.7	37.5°
crosswind	3.575	151.9	32.6°
gusty_light	3.451	146.6	31.8°
hot_thin	3.299	140.2	27.1°
storm	4.486	190.6	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	43.3°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.8 mm
battery wedge	0.5°
plate thickness	×0.67
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b3496a446aee

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.846 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.1% better
scenario mean	3.603 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.487 Wh/km
frame mass	60.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 68 via crossover

hypothesisWith parent 08748e03c0bf trailing and a3dcb10cc229 mid-pack, this cross bets that tightening the deck gap slightly and growing plate length can recover ground while a small rear-sweep bump compensates.

methodTrimmed deck gap by about 0.2 mm, grew plate length by roughly one percent, and increased rear sweep by 0.2 degrees.

resultFinished at 5.846, better than the weaker parent 08748e03c0bf but slightly worse than a3dcb10cc229, and still off the 5.830 best-so-far. The plate-length growth and rear-sweep bump appear to have offset each other rather than compounding gains. Worth trying the deck-gap trim in isolation on the current leader's genome.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.091	131.3	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.714	157.8	37.6°
crosswind	3.577	152.0	32.7°
gusty_light	3.451	146.6	31.9°
hot_thin	3.297	140.1	27.2°
storm	4.487	190.6	29.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.81
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.1°
rear sweep	44.7°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	37.9 mm
battery wedge	0.5°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 43a586542b16

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.847 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.1% better
scenario mean	3.603 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.488 Wh/km
frame mass	60.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 70 via mutation

hypothesisA conservative mutation of a weaker parent (b3496a446aee) checked whether its wider plate and longer arm combination held any untapped robustness margin.

methodNo meaningful change from the parent — genes held within noise.

result5.847, matching the parent almost exactly and confirming this wider-plate, longer-arm lineage also sits on a flat plateau below the leading pack. Doesn't threaten best-so-far. Worth retiring this branch in favor of exploring around the new champion ad8871a2dc40.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.091	131.3	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.715	157.8	37.6°
crosswind	3.577	152.0	32.7°
gusty_light	3.451	146.6	31.9°
hot_thin	3.298	140.1	27.2°
storm	4.488	190.7	29.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.81
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.0°
rear sweep	44.7°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	37.9 mm
battery wedge	0.5°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d262d498a119

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.850 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.0% better
scenario mean	3.606 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.490 Wh/km
frame mass	59.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 70 via mutation

hypothesisMutating 70471228a0b9 probed whether opening the arm waist taper and lengthening the arm slightly would trade weight for better load distribution.

methodWidened the arm waist about 9%, narrowed arm width about 2%, loosened arm cutouts, and lengthened the arm roughly 1%.

result5.85, worse than the parent and best-so-far; the combined waist and length changes added drag or weight without compensating benefit, most visible in cold_headwind and storm. Waist widening looks like a losing direction here — next worth testing waist narrowing in isolation from the length change.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.096	131.5	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.716	157.9	37.7°
crosswind	3.577	152.0	32.6°
gusty_light	3.454	146.7	31.9°
hot_thin	3.302	140.3	27.2°
storm	4.490	190.7	29.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.51
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.02
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.6 mm
battery wedge	0.7°
plate thickness	×0.66
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 43e94b992408

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.867 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.8% better
scenario mean	3.615 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.503 Wh/km
frame mass	62.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 70 via mutation

hypothesisMutating e516d707feab tested whether a thicker arm would add enough stiffness margin to offset its weaker starting fitness.

methodIncreased arm thickness by 0.2mm (2.5mm to 2.7mm), keeping other genes close to the parent.

result5.867, the weakest result of the generation and clearly worse than the parent and best-so-far, with every scenario ticking up and storm rising most. Confirms thicker arms add more mass penalty than stiffness benefit here — next worth reverting to a thinner arm and pairing this parent's other traits with narrower arm width instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.102	131.8	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.725	158.2	37.5°
crosswind	3.589	152.5	32.7°
gusty_light	3.463	147.1	31.8°
hot_thin	3.310	140.6	27.1°
storm	4.503	191.3	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.7 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.1°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.9 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.66
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate fd9db8a3f7d2

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.831 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.3% better
scenario mean	3.594 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.474 Wh/km
frame mass	59.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 68 via crossover

hypothesisWith genes nearly identical to leader 70471228a0b9, this cross probes whether tiny reshuffling around the current best can edge out an improvement.

methodEssentially reproduced the leading parent's genome with only trace differences in the crossover.

resultCame in at 5.831 — a near-exact match to the 5.830 best-so-far and the closest any candidate got this generation, though it did not become a new winner. This confirms the population has converged very tightly around this design point, with almost no daylight left between candidates. Worth introducing a targeted single-gene mutation from this genome to probe for marginal gains rather than more crossovers.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.088	131.2	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.699	157.2	37.5°
crosswind	3.566	151.5	32.6°
gusty_light	3.443	146.2	31.7°
hot_thin	3.293	139.9	27.1°
storm	4.474	190.1	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.6 mm
battery wedge	0.7°
plate thickness	×0.67
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 3b5b2e327cf2

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.832 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.3% better
scenario mean	3.595 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.475 Wh/km
frame mass	59.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 69 via mutation

hypothesisA conservative mutation off the record-holder tested whether a barely-perceptible material and arm-width tweak could find marginal gains without disturbing the winning formula.

methodMutated the parent with a near-zero change to material blend and arm length, and a hairline widening of arm width.

result5.832, essentially flat versus the 5.830 parent and not a new best — the tiny arm-width widening cost almost nothing but also gained nothing. This suggests the design is near a local optimum along this axis; next worth trying a slightly larger, deliberate perturbation rather than another near-zero mutation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.088	131.2	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.701	157.2	37.5°
crosswind	3.567	151.5	32.6°
gusty_light	3.443	146.3	31.8°
hot_thin	3.293	139.9	27.1°
storm	4.475	190.1	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.93
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.6 mm
battery wedge	0.7°
plate thickness	×0.66
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate e516d707feab

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.839 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.2% better
scenario mean	3.598 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.481 Wh/km
frame mass	60.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 68 via crossover

hypothesisAnother near-duplicate cross between ec53169beaa7 and leader 70471228a0b9, testing whether small deck-gap and battery-wedge shifts inherited from the weaker parent can still edge toward the best.

methodGenes stayed essentially unchanged from the weaker parent's configuration.

resultFitness landed at 5.839, matching the weaker parent exactly and confirming no improvement, still off the 5.830 best-so-far. This reinforces that this genomic region is a stable local plateau rather than a productive direction. Worth trying a larger mutation step on deck gap or battery wedge instead of another near-identical crossover.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.089	131.3	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.707	157.5	37.5°
crosswind	3.570	151.7	32.6°
gusty_light	3.447	146.4	31.8°
hot_thin	3.296	140.0	27.1°
storm	4.481	190.4	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.1°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.9 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.66
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 0b1d86c6aa42

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.841 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.2% better
scenario mean	3.599 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.482 Wh/km
frame mass	60.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 69 via crossover

hypothesisSame rationale as its sibling cross — two near-twin top performers recombined to see if a slightly different deck-gap/front-sweep split could edge past 5.830.

methodSame crossover pairing as the sibling candidate, with only a hairline nudge to deck gap (tighter) and front sweep (very slightly steeper).

result5.841, marginally worse than its sibling and still behind the 5.830 best-so-far — the micro-nudges made no measurable difference in any scenario. This pairing looks exhausted; next worth crossing against a genuinely different lineage rather than another near-twin recombination.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.091	131.3	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.707	157.5	37.5°
crosswind	3.570	151.7	32.6°
gusty_light	3.448	146.5	31.8°
hot_thin	3.297	140.1	27.1°
storm	4.482	190.4	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.3°
rear sweep	43.1°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.7 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.66
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 3270363f6593

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.841 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.2% better
scenario mean	3.600 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.483 Wh/km
frame mass	60.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 69 via crossover

hypothesisPairing the same two elite-but-plateaued parents in a different combination (8ac4c8e23d62 x fd9db8a3f7d2, 5.831) tested whether a marginally thicker arm and near-zero cutouts could nudge past the plateau.

methodCrossover kept the layout essentially unchanged but thickened the arm slightly and dropped arm cutouts to near zero, with a hair less front sweep.

result5.841, worse than both parents and behind best-so-far — removing cutouts apparently added mass without a stiffness payoff big enough to matter. Next idea: reintroduce a modest cutout fraction while keeping the thicker arm, to see if the mass savings outweighs any stiffness lost.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.091	131.3	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.708	157.5	37.5°
crosswind	3.571	151.7	32.6°
gusty_light	3.448	146.5	31.8°
hot_thin	3.297	140.1	27.1°
storm	4.483	190.5	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	43.1°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.8 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.66
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 51522374184c

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.849 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.1% better
scenario mean	3.604 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.490 Wh/km
frame mass	60.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 69 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing a mid-pack parent (e516d707feab, 5.839) with the record-holder tested whether a longer plate and a steeper battery wedge could improve balance enough to offset the weaker parent's drag.

methodCrossover lengthened the plate slightly and nearly doubled the battery wedge angle.

result5.849, worse than the record-holder parent and behind best-so-far — the steeper battery wedge cost a bit across every scenario, especially crosswind and storm. Battery wedge looks better left low; next test wedge changes in isolation, without also touching plate length, to isolate the culprit.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.092	131.4	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.716	157.9	37.5°
crosswind	3.576	151.9	32.6°
gusty_light	3.453	146.7	31.8°
hot_thin	3.299	140.2	27.1°
storm	4.490	190.7	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.1°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.9 mm
battery wedge	0.7°
plate thickness	×0.66
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate ed3f94b63cfd

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.851 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.0% better
scenario mean	3.606 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.490 Wh/km
frame mass	60.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 69 via mutation

hypothesisA mutation off the record-holder 70471228a0b9 tested whether widening the plate and opening the deck gap further could unlock extra stiffness margin for more aggressive slimming elsewhere.

methodMutated the parent by widening the plate slightly, opening the deck gap by over a millimeter, and shifting the material blend heavier.

result5.851, worse than the parent and short of the 5.830 best-so-far — every scenario ticked up, meaning the wider deck gap likely added drag or mass without payoff. Deck gap appears to have a tight optimum near 37.6-37.9mm; next mutation should stay inside that band.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.098	131.6	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.714	157.8	37.5°
crosswind	3.578	152.0	32.6°
gusty_light	3.455	146.8	31.8°
hot_thin	3.303	140.3	27.1°
storm	4.490	190.7	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	38.9 mm
battery wedge	0.7°
plate thickness	×0.66
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 001d6d39ba52✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.870 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.8% better
scenario mean	3.617 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.504 Wh/km
frame mass	62.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 69 via designer

hypothesisThe designer tested whether thickening the arm slightly while opening up cutouts more than the elite population's near-zero level could trade wall thickness for hollow volume at similar strength.

methodBuilt with the population's standard narrow-waist arm layout but arm thickness raised and cutout fraction raised well above the elites' near-zero level.

result5.87, worse than the 5.830 best-so-far and than the thinner-arm elite lineage — the extra cutout volume didn't offset the thicker walls. This reinforces that the elite near-zero-cutout, thin-arm combination is already close to the local optimum; next the designer should test cutouts on the thinner arm rather than combining them with a thickness increase.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.105	131.9	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.727	158.3	37.5°
crosswind	3.590	152.5	32.6°
gusty_light	3.465	147.2	31.8°
hot_thin	3.312	140.7	27.1°
storm	4.504	191.4	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.18
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.6 mm
battery wedge	0.7°
plate thickness	×0.66
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 099a8e466c32✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.874 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.7% better
scenario mean	3.621 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.507 Wh/km
frame mass	61.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 69 via designer

hypothesisThe designer bet that longer arms with a shallower front sweep angle could reduce drag or improve stability enough to justify the extra material length.

methodBuilt with arms lengthened, front sweep angle reduced, and the plate slightly lengthened and widened to match.

result5.874, worse than the 5.830 best-so-far — the longer arms and larger plate added mass and drag across every scenario despite the shallower sweep. This suggests the current arm-length setting is already close to optimal for this frame; next the designer might isolate the sweep-angle change alone, without also lengthening the arms.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.108	132.0	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.732	158.5	37.7°
crosswind	3.596	152.8	32.8°
gusty_light	3.467	147.3	31.9°
hot_thin	3.313	140.8	27.2°
storm	4.507	191.5	29.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.85
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	34.5°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	37.6 mm
battery wedge	0.7°
plate thickness	×0.66
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 1f040255aaee

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.882 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.6% better
scenario mean	3.625 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.513 Wh/km
frame mass	62.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 69 via crossover

hypothesisRecombining the record-holder with 8ac4c8e23d62 in reverse pairing order tested a bundle of simultaneous changes — longer plate, wider waist, thicker plate — to see if a stiffer overall structure could pay for itself.

methodCrossover lengthened the plate, widened the arm waist back out, opened the deck gap further, and thickened both the arm and the plate.

result5.882, clearly worse than either parent and the worst valid result this generation — stacking several material-adding changes at once simply added weight every scenario had to carry, including storm. This confirms the winning direction is toward less material, not more; next mutations should isolate single-gene changes rather than bundling several increases together.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.112	132.2	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.733	158.6	37.5°
crosswind	3.602	153.0	32.6°
gusty_light	3.473	147.6	31.8°
hot_thin	3.319	141.0	27.1°
storm	4.513	191.7	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.49
arm thickness	2.7 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.3 mm
battery wedge	0.8°
plate thickness	×0.68
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate eedcf2616432✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.971 Wh/km
vs baseline	13.3% better
scenario mean	3.680 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.582 Wh/km
frame mass	69.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 69 via designer

hypothesisA designer-proposed candidate bet that a much wider arm waist paired with heavier cutouts and a thicker plate could open a different, more cutout-driven weight-saving strategy than the population's narrow-waist convergence.

methodBuilt from scratch with a notably wider arm waist, thinner tips, roughly a third of the arm hollowed by cutouts, and a markedly thicker carbon plate.

result5.971, the worst result of the generation and well behind the 5.830 best-so-far — every scenario suffered, suggesting the thicker plate outweighed any savings from the cutouts and wider waist. This design direction looks like a dead end for now; next the designer might try the aggressive cutout idea but paired with the population's already-proven thin plate instead of a thicker one.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.163	134.4	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.786	160.8	37.5°
crosswind	3.651	155.1	32.6°
gusty_light	3.524	149.7	31.8°
hot_thin	3.374	143.3	27.1°
storm	4.582	194.6	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.65
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×0.70
arm cutouts	×0.32
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.6 mm
battery wedge	0.7°
plate thickness	×1.05
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 2949b0f95352

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm resonance with rotor 1P
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	205.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 69 via immigrant

hypothesisA fresh random immigrant was injected to test a completely different structural regime — longer, thicker, wide-waisted arms — as a hedge against the population converging too tightly on the slender-arm design.

methodRandomly generated genome with much longer and thicker arms, a wider waist, steep front sweep, and a heavier, thicker plate — a large jump away from the current elite cluster's slender, thin-plate design.

resultInvalid — the thick arm combined with its length and sweep hit a resonance with the rotor's 1P frequency, an outright structural disqualification rather than a fitness ranking. This confirms the elite population's thin-arm, high-sweep design isn't just efficient but also avoids a resonance band that thicker arms fall into; next immigrant should keep arm thickness closer to the elite range while still varying length or sweep for diversity.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.10
arm width	×0.91
arm waist	×1.23
arm thickness	8.8 mm
tip thickness	×0.58
arm cutouts	×0.58
front sweep	45.0°
rear sweep	37.3°
plate length	×1.10
plate width	×1.24
deck gap	41.5 mm
battery wedge	8.4°
plate thickness	×1.34
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate b9875b5864b2

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.837 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.2% better
scenario mean	3.597 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.479 Wh/km
frame mass	59.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 68 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents are near the front of the pack, so this cross bets that a slightly fuller arm waist paired with a touch more battery wedge tilt can shave a little more off an already tight design.

methodThickened the arm waist marginally and increased battery wedge tilt by about 0.2 degrees.

resultCame in at 5.837, between the two parents and close to the 5.830 best-so-far but not a new winner. The waist and wedge changes largely canceled out — a small loss from the wedge shift offset by a small gain from the waist. Worth isolating the battery wedge change alone against the 70471228a0b9 baseline to see if it's a net negative on its own.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.089	131.2	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.705	157.4	37.5°
crosswind	3.569	151.6	32.6°
gusty_light	3.445	146.4	31.8°
hot_thin	3.295	140.0	27.1°
storm	4.479	190.3	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.49
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.6 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×0.66
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 8ac4c8e23d62

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.838 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.2% better
scenario mean	3.598 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.480 Wh/km
frame mass	60.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 67 via crossover

hypothesisParents were both near the plateau ceiling (5.839, 5.856); this cross essentially re-samples the fitter parent's genome almost verbatim, testing whether crossover noise alone could shake loose a small improvement.

methodGenes came out nearly identical to the fitter parent, with only negligible rounding-level differences in plate thickness and deck gap.

result5.838, essentially matching its fitter parent (5.839) and just barely under the pre-generation best-so-far, but not lower than the new best-so-far of 5.83 set earlier in this same generation, so it does not become champion. This near-duplicate outcome shows the search has converged tightly around this genome; next step should favor a bolder mutation off this base rather than another near-identical crossover.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.089	131.2	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.706	157.4	37.5°
crosswind	3.569	151.6	32.6°
gusty_light	3.446	146.4	31.8°
hot_thin	3.295	140.0	27.1°
storm	4.480	190.3	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.1°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.9 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.66
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a07e8f005b6f

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.841 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.2% better
scenario mean	3.600 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.483 Wh/km
frame mass	60.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 68 via crossover

hypothesisThis is effectively a self-cross of 8ac4c8e23d62 against itself, testing whether fine-tuning plate length and battery wedge around an already-strong design nudges it closer to the leader.

methodGrew plate length by about two percent and cut battery wedge tilt sharply, down to near flat.

resultLanded at 5.841, marginally worse than the 5.838 parent and still shy of the 5.830 best-so-far. The near-flat battery wedge likely under-tilted the pack for the storm scenario, costing slightly more than the plate-length growth saved. Worth testing a wedge angle between 0.1 and 0.4 degrees to find the local optimum instead of jumping straight to near-zero.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.090	131.3	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.707	157.5	37.5°
crosswind	3.573	151.8	32.6°
gusty_light	3.449	146.5	31.8°
hot_thin	3.296	140.0	27.1°
storm	4.483	190.4	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.1°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.7 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.66
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 889c3dc92a7a

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.845 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.1% better
scenario mean	3.603 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.484 Wh/km
frame mass	59.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 68 via crossover

hypothesisGenes are nearly identical to parent 186e16302e46, so this cross is really testing whether the crossover machinery converges to a stable local optimum rather than proposing a genuinely new bet.

methodEssentially no meaningful gene change from the fitter parent — a crossover that reproduced the same design.

resultScored 5.845, almost matching 186e16302e46's 5.844, confirming the population is converging tightly around this design point but still short of the 5.830 best-so-far. No real design lesson beyond stability confirmation; worth pushing mutation rate up slightly to break out of this near-duplicate clustering.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.095	131.5	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.711	157.6	37.6°
crosswind	3.575	151.9	32.7°
gusty_light	3.451	146.6	31.8°
hot_thin	3.300	140.2	27.1°
storm	4.484	190.5	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.82
arm width	×0.91
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.9°
rear sweep	43.4°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.2 mm
battery wedge	1.3°
plate thickness	×0.62
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 449a4f285d98

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.851 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.0% better
scenario mean	3.607 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.489 Wh/km
frame mass	59.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 68 via crossover

hypothesisParent 70471228a0b9 leads while 186e16302e46 trails slightly; this cross bets that a heavier material mix paired with a thicker plate can add durability margin without much fitness cost.

methodIncreased the material blend ratio, thickened the plate slightly, and widened the arm waist marginally.

resultScored 5.851, worse than both parents and off the 5.830 best-so-far. The heavier material and thicker plate combination added mass that the marginal waist widening couldn't offset, penalizing every scenario roughly evenly. Worth testing the plate-thickness change alone against the leader without the material shift.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.098	131.6	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.715	157.8	37.6°
crosswind	3.579	152.0	32.7°
gusty_light	3.455	146.8	31.9°
hot_thin	3.303	140.3	27.2°
storm	4.489	190.7	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.82
arm width	×0.91
arm waist	×0.48
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.8°
rear sweep	43.4°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.2 mm
battery wedge	1.3°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate cb4ad2e95f2e

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.858 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.9% better
scenario mean	3.610 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.496 Wh/km
frame mass	61.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 68 via crossover

hypothesisParent 70471228a0b9 leads the field, so this cross bets that lengthening the arms slightly and thinning the material mix while narrowing arm width can push past the current best.

methodLengthened arms by about four percent, grew plate length by two percent, narrowed arm width, and lightened the material blend slightly.

resultScored 5.858, worse than both parents and off the 5.830 best-so-far. The combination of longer arms and a narrower width likely shifted the structural loading unfavorably, outweighing the material-lightening benefit. Worth isolating the material blend change alone on the 70471228a0b9 baseline.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.097	131.6	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.721	158.1	37.6°
crosswind	3.584	152.2	32.7°
gusty_light	3.458	146.9	31.9°
hot_thin	3.304	140.4	27.1°
storm	4.496	191.0	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.81
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.1°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.9 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.66
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 36204ad3ba74

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.862 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.9% better
scenario mean	3.613 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.499 Wh/km
frame mass	59.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 68 via crossover

hypothesisParent 70471228a0b9 sits right at the current best while 186e16302e46 trails slightly; the cross bets that stacking a wider deck gap and steeper front sweep from the weaker parent onto the leaner arm profile of the leader could unlock extra headroom without hurting drag.

methodWidened the deck gap by about a millimeter, thickened the composite material layup, steepened the front sweep by roughly half a degree, and pulled arm width in fractionally.

resultLanded at 5.862, worse than both parents and short of the 5.830 best-so-far — no new winner. The combined deck-gap widening and steeper front sweep likely added drag and weight faster than the material and arm-width tweaks could recover, showing up across storm and cold-headwind legs. Worth testing the sweep and deck-gap changes in isolation to isolate which one is the real drag.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.100	131.7	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.729	158.4	37.9°
crosswind	3.586	152.3	32.8°
gusty_light	3.460	147.0	32.0°
hot_thin	3.305	140.4	27.2°
storm	4.499	191.1	29.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.82
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.48
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.4°
rear sweep	43.4°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	39.1 mm
battery wedge	1.3°
plate thickness	×0.62
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b42788b5adfc

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.867 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.8% better
scenario mean	3.616 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.502 Wh/km
frame mass	60.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 68 via crossover

hypothesisParent 70471228a0b9 holds the current best fitness, so this cross bets that lengthening the arms while thinning the plate can trade some mass for more favorable aerodynamics.

methodLengthened the arms by about six percent, widened the deck gap by just over a millimeter, narrowed arm width slightly, and thinned the plate.

resultEnded at 5.867, worse than both parents and off the 5.830 best-so-far. The longer arms combined with a wider deck gap likely added more structural mass and drag than the thinner plate saved, hurting every scenario roughly equally. Worth testing arm length alone against the leader without the deck-gap widening.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.102	131.8	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.730	158.5	37.8°
crosswind	3.588	152.4	32.7°
gusty_light	3.463	147.1	32.0°
hot_thin	3.308	140.5	27.2°
storm	4.502	191.3	29.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.84
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.7 mm
battery wedge	0.8°
plate thickness	×0.64
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 142d7d88f8a4

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.868 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.8% better
scenario mean	3.617 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.502 Wh/km
frame mass	60.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 68 via crossover

hypothesisWith parent 8ac4c8e23d62 close to the leader, this cross bets that lengthening the arms and thickening their tube slightly, while thinning the plate, can trade weight in the right places.

methodLengthened arms by about two percent, widened the arm waist, thickened the arm tube slightly, and thinned the plate further.

resultLanded at 5.868, worse than both parents and off the 5.830 best-so-far. The thicker arm tube likely added more mass than the thinner plate could recover, and combined with the longer arms this compounded the energy cost across scenarios. Worth testing a thinner arm tube, below 2.5mm, paired with the longer arm length instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.107	132.0	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.727	158.3	37.8°
crosswind	3.588	152.4	32.8°
gusty_light	3.464	147.2	32.0°
hot_thin	3.312	140.7	27.2°
storm	4.502	191.3	29.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.84
arm width	×0.91
arm waist	×0.49
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.8°
rear sweep	43.4°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.2 mm
battery wedge	1.3°
plate thickness	×0.60
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 28dd2d3b16b3

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.868 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.8% better
scenario mean	3.617 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.503 Wh/km
frame mass	62.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 68 via crossover

hypothesisWith both parents already off the pace, this cross bets that nudging plate proportions and front sweep toward a slightly bulkier, straighter-tipped configuration might find a pocket the parents missed.

methodIncreased front sweep by about a degree, trimmed tip thickness by one percent, and grew plate length and width by roughly one percent each.

resultFinished at 5.868, worse than both parents and well off the 5.830 best-so-far. The added sweep plus larger plate footprint likely raised drag across every scenario without a compensating weight saving. Worth trying the plate-size increase alone with sweep held at the better parent's value.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.105	131.9	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.726	158.3	37.5°
crosswind	3.589	152.5	32.6°
gusty_light	3.464	147.2	31.8°
hot_thin	3.312	140.7	27.1°
storm	4.503	191.3	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.46
arm thickness	2.7 mm
tip thickness	×0.99
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	38.0°
rear sweep	43.1°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 3eef29c48287

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.831 Wh/km
vs baseline	0.8% better
scenario mean	4.209 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.244 Wh/km
frame mass	134.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 68 via immigrant

hypothesisThis immigrant tests an alternate structural philosophy — narrower arms but thicker cross-section and a larger, more tilted battery deck — to see if a different weight distribution could compete with the refined lineage.

methodIntroduced a fresh random design with narrower but much thicker arms, larger plate dimensions, and a steeper battery wedge tilt.

resultFitness came in at 6.831, far worse than the 5.830 best-so-far — valid but heavily uncompetitive, about 17% worse in energy cost. The thick arm cross-section again dominates the cost, echoing the same lesson as the other immigrant this generation: raw stiffness doesn't pay for itself here. Worth checking if its narrower arm width alone, independent of the thickness, is worth testing on the lightweight lineage.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.585	152.3	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.380	186.1	39.5°
crosswind	4.204	178.6	34.4°
gusty_light	4.017	170.6	33.0°
hot_thin	3.822	162.4	27.8°
storm	5.244	222.8	33.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.03
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×1.03
arm thickness	5.8 mm
tip thickness	×0.97
arm cutouts	×0.04
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	38.6°
plate length	×1.06
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	37.9 mm
battery wedge	2.3°
plate thickness	×0.79
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate f5a8707ad580

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.935 Wh/km
vs baseline	0.7% worse
scenario mean	4.273 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.325 Wh/km
frame mass	143.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 68 via immigrant

hypothesisThis immigrant probes a structurally overbuilt corner of the design space — thick, short, boxy arms with minimal sweep — to check whether raw stiffness could beat the finely tuned lightweight lineage on robustness.

methodReset to a heavy baseline with much thicker arms, shallower front and rear sweep, and a tighter deck gap, essentially reintroducing genetic diversity from scratch.

resultFitness came in at 6.935, far worse than the 5.830 best-so-far — valid but badly uncompetitive, roughly 19% heavier in energy cost across every scenario. The thick arm section clearly costs far more in mass and drag than it buys in robustness, confirming the population has correctly moved away from over-built structures. Worth checking whether any single gene from this immigrant, like its shallower rear sweep, is worth grafting onto the lightweight lineage rather than the whole immigrant.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.646	154.9	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.431	188.2	39.4°
crosswind	4.266	181.2	34.1°
gusty_light	4.080	173.3	32.9°
hot_thin	3.889	165.2	27.7°
storm	5.325	226.2	32.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×1.00
arm waist	×1.01
arm thickness	6.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.4°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.3 mm
battery wedge	2.3°
plate thickness	×0.99
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate ec53169beaa7new best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.839 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.2% better
scenario mean	3.598 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.481 Wh/km
frame mass	60.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 65 via pivot

hypothesisThe stronger parent already sat right at the plateau, so the bet was that trimming arm length and nudging the material blend a bit further toward the lighter carbon-fiber plate — while easing the rear sweep and thinning the waist — could shave residual mass without hurting the storm-limited scenarios.

methodShortened the arms slightly, shifted the material mix a bit further toward carbon-fiber plate, eased the rear arm sweep by under half a degree, and thinned the arm waist marginally.

resultFitness dropped to 5.839, beating the prior best-so-far of 5.851 to become a NEW WINNER, with losses trimmed almost uniformly across all six weather cases and even a slight storm improvement. The gain reads as clean mass-shaving with no scenario trade-off, meaning the plateau hadn't been fully mined yet. Worth testing next: push the arm-length and material-blend shift a little further to see how much more headroom exists before the storm scenario's pack limit becomes the binding constraint.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.090	131.3	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.707	157.5	37.5°
crosswind	3.570	151.7	32.6°
gusty_light	3.447	146.4	31.8°
hot_thin	3.296	140.0	27.1°
storm	4.481	190.4	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.1°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.9 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.66
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 2416283932cc

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.841 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.2% better
scenario mean	3.600 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.482 Wh/km
frame mass	60.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 66 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents were already clustered tightly around the leading fitness band, so this cross bets that blending two near-twins will nudge the shared design a hair further down without risking a big structural swing.

methodCrossover of the two parents produced genes almost identical to both — essentially a low-mutation blend with no material dimension moved more than a rounding error.

resultLanded at 5.841, edging out both parents slightly but still shy of the 5.839 best-so-far — a near-clone that confirms this genome pocket is close to a local optimum but hasn't found the extra margin yet. Worth trying a deliberate single-gene nudge (e.g. a small arm-waist taper change) rather than another blend, since blending near-twins keeps returning near-twin results.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.091	131.3	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.707	157.5	37.5°
crosswind	3.574	151.8	32.6°
gusty_light	3.449	146.5	31.8°
hot_thin	3.297	140.1	27.1°
storm	4.482	190.4	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.46
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.1°
rear sweep	43.1°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	37.9 mm
battery wedge	0.8°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a3dcb10cc229

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.843 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.2% better
scenario mean	3.601 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.484 Wh/km
frame mass	59.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 67 via crossover

hypothesisParents sat on opposite sides of the plateau (5.855, 5.841); this cross bets that pushing rear sweep further out while trimming arm thickness could combine both parents' strengths.

methodIncreased rear sweep to 44.5° (from 43.2°), reduced arm thickness to 2.5mm (from 2.6mm), and narrowed arm waist fractionally (~0.47x, from ~0.48x).

result5.843, better than both parents and nearly matching the new best-so-far (5.83), missing it by a hair. Every scenario improved in lockstep, suggesting rear sweep near 44-44.5° with a thinner arm is a strong region. Worth directly crossing this candidate with the new champion (70471228a0b9) to combine its rear-sweep value with the champion's battery-wedge/plate-length setting.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.091	131.3	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.712	157.7	37.6°
crosswind	3.573	151.8	32.7°
gusty_light	3.449	146.5	31.9°
hot_thin	3.297	140.0	27.1°
storm	4.484	190.5	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.81
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.1°
rear sweep	44.5°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	38.1 mm
battery wedge	0.6°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 186e16302e46

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.844 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.1% better
scenario mean	3.602 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.484 Wh/km
frame mass	59.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 67 via crossover

hypothesisParents bracketed the plateau (5.849, 5.877); this cross bets that a bigger battery wedge combined with a thinner plate could improve trim and shave mass at the same time.

methodIncreased battery wedge to 1.3° (from 0.4°), thinned the plate to ~0.62x (from ~0.65x), shifted the material blend slightly, and trimmed a sliver of arm cutout.

result5.844, beating both parents — a real improvement, though it falls short of the new best-so-far of 5.83 set earlier this generation. The steeper wedge plus thinner plate looks promising; worth crossing this candidate's wedge/plate settings with the new champion's rear-sweep value to see if the gains stack.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.095	131.5	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.708	157.5	37.6°
crosswind	3.576	151.9	32.7°
gusty_light	3.451	146.6	31.9°
hot_thin	3.300	140.2	27.1°
storm	4.484	190.5	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.82
arm width	×0.91
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.8°
rear sweep	43.4°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.2 mm
battery wedge	1.3°
plate thickness	×0.62
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 9d4f63731087

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.854 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.0% better
scenario mean	3.608 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.492 Wh/km
frame mass	60.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 67 via crossover

hypothesisParents were both sitting at the edge of the plateau (5.854, 5.855); this cross tries tightening the deck gap alongside plate/arm width tweaks to see if a more compact deck cuts drag.

methodReduced deck gap to 36.9mm (from 38.0mm), shortened the plate slightly (~0.95x, from ~0.97x), widened it marginally (~1.01x), and widened arm width a touch (~0.93x, from ~0.92x).

result5.854, essentially a wash with its fitter parent — no scenario moved meaningfully and storm held at 4.49. The tighter deck gap didn't translate into savings, hinting the current gap is already near-optimal; a cleaner next test would isolate deck gap alone without simultaneous plate changes.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.095	131.5	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.715	157.8	37.5°
crosswind	3.585	152.3	32.6°
gusty_light	3.456	146.8	31.8°
hot_thin	3.302	140.3	27.1°
storm	4.492	190.8	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.93
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	43.4°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	36.9 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 8fe420d6e646

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.855 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.0% better
scenario mean	3.608 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.495 Wh/km
frame mass	60.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 67 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents were near the top of the pack (5.854 and 5.839), sitting on the crowded plateau; this cross bets that blending their plate proportions can nudge past it without touching the already-stabilized arm geometry.

methodKept both parents' arm and sweep genes essentially fixed, splitting the difference on plate length (~0.95x, slightly shorter) while leaving plate width unchanged at ~1.03x.

resultLanded at 5.855, worse than the better parent (5.839) and roughly tying the weaker one — storm remained the heaviest drag at 4.49. The plate tweak alone didn't help, suggesting plate length/width are already near their optimum for this arm configuration. Worth trying a deck-gap change instead of plate dimensions on this same parent pair.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.092	131.3	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.724	158.2	37.7°
crosswind	3.581	152.1	32.7°
gusty_light	3.455	146.8	31.9°
hot_thin	3.299	140.1	27.2°
storm	4.495	191.0	29.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.91
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.1°
rear sweep	43.2°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	38.7 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate f0941e4636c7

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.863 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.9% better
scenario mean	3.614 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.499 Wh/km
frame mass	61.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 67 via mutation

hypothesisParent (5.842) sat near the plateau; this mutation bets that pairing a thicker arm with a thinner plate could rebalance mass for a net efficiency gain.

methodIncreased arm thickness to 2.7mm (from 2.5mm) while thinning the plate to ~0.63x (from ~0.65x); plate length left unchanged.

result5.863, worse than the parent — the extra arm mass outweighed the plate savings, with storm ticking up to 4.5. Echoes candidate b740ab095b07's failure mode: arm-thickness increases aren't paying off at this stage. Next: thin the plate further while holding arm thickness fixed at the parent's 2.5mm.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.101	131.8	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.722	158.1	37.5°
crosswind	3.589	152.5	32.6°
gusty_light	3.461	147.1	31.8°
hot_thin	3.308	140.5	27.1°
storm	4.499	191.1	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.46
arm thickness	2.7 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.1°
rear sweep	43.1°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.8°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 08748e03c0bf

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.864 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.8% better
scenario mean	3.614 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.499 Wh/km
frame mass	60.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 67 via crossover

hypothesisParents were tightly matched near the plateau (5.841, 5.842); this cross bets that a slightly shorter arm and tighter deck gap together could trim mass without losing stability.

methodArm length nudged to ~0.79x (essentially unchanged), arm waist widened to ~0.48x (from ~0.46x), deck gap tightened to 37.2mm (from 37.9mm), and front sweep nudged to 37.2° (from 37.1°).

result5.864, worse than both parents, with storm rising to 4.5. The deck-gap tightening again underperforms — echoing candidate 9d4f63731087 — reinforcing that the current ~38mm deck gap is near-optimal and shouldn't be squeezed further. Next: test deck-gap increases paired with this generation's winning rear-sweep/battery-wedge combo.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.105	131.9	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.724	158.2	37.6°
crosswind	3.588	152.4	32.6°
gusty_light	3.462	147.1	31.9°
hot_thin	3.310	140.6	27.2°
storm	4.499	191.1	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.48
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.2°
rear sweep	43.1°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	37.2 mm
battery wedge	0.8°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b740ab095b07

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.880 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.6% better
scenario mean	3.623 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.513 Wh/km
frame mass	62.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 67 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents were solid mid-pack performers (5.849, 5.854); this cross bets that thickening the arms slightly buys stiffness margin that could pay off in storm/crosswind without much mass penalty.

methodIncreased arm thickness to 2.7mm (from 2.5mm), otherwise matching the fitter parent's genome.

result5.88, worse than both parents — the added arm mass cost more in every scenario than any stiffness benefit gained, with storm rising to 4.51. Confirms arm thickness is already near its efficient minimum here; next test should trim thickness further rather than add to it.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.107	132.0	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.739	158.8	37.7°
crosswind	3.597	152.8	32.7°
gusty_light	3.470	147.4	31.9°
hot_thin	3.314	140.8	27.2°
storm	4.513	191.7	29.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.82
arm width	×0.91
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.7 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.8°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 6152e0848c2f

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.882 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.6% better
scenario mean	3.625 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.514 Wh/km
frame mass	63.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 67 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents were tightly matched near 5.85; this cross bets that a thicker arm plus a slightly wider waist and near-full tip thickness would add cheap durability margin.

methodIncreased arm thickness to 2.8mm (from 2.6mm), widened arm waist to ~0.49x (from ~0.47x), trimmed tip thickness fractionally, and removed a sliver of arm cutout.

result5.882, worse than both parents across every scenario (storm 4.51). Piling structural margin onto an already-lean arm just adds mass without matching return — the plateau clearly favors thinner-waisted, lighter arms. Next: widen the waist alone without adding thickness, to isolate which change actually hurts.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.109	132.1	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.736	158.7	37.6°
crosswind	3.600	152.9	32.7°
gusty_light	3.471	147.5	31.8°
hot_thin	3.317	140.9	27.1°
storm	4.514	191.8	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.91
arm waist	×0.49
arm thickness	2.8 mm
tip thickness	×0.99
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 5d33319a7e2f

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.916 Wh/km
vs baseline	0.4% worse
scenario mean	4.261 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.309 Wh/km
frame mass	141.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 67 via immigrant

hypothesisAnother blind immigrant probe, testing a heavier-armed, tight-deck-gap variant with shallower front/rear sweep than the converged lineage.

methodFresh random genome with arm thickness at 5.9mm, deck gap at 30.2mm, front/rear sweep pulled in to 31.5°/36.0°, battery wedge at 1.8°.

result6.916, far worse than best-so-far, with every scenario penalized heavily (storm 5.31). Confirms again that thick arms and tight deck gaps are a dead end regardless of sweep angle. Future immigrants would be more competitive — and more informative — if seeded closer to the champion's arm-thickness range.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.639	154.6	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.418	187.7	39.4°
crosswind	4.251	180.6	34.1°
gusty_light	4.069	172.9	32.9°
hot_thin	3.880	164.9	27.7°
storm	5.309	225.5	33.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.01
arm width	×0.99
arm waist	×0.96
arm thickness	5.9 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.5°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	30.2 mm
battery wedge	1.8°
plate thickness	×0.99
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 9fac758fa5ab

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.947 Wh/km
vs baseline	0.9% worse
scenario mean	4.279 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.335 Wh/km
frame mass	143.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 67 via immigrant

hypothesisA random immigrant probing far outside the converged design space, testing whether a bulkier frame with a tighter deck gap and steeper battery wedge could reveal a different viable region.

methodFresh random genome — near-stock arm length/width, but arm thickness jumped to 5.8mm (over double the lineage's ~2.5mm), deck gap tightened to 29mm, battery wedge raised to 1.6°.

result6.947, far worse than the 5.83 best-so-far, with every scenario elevated (storm 5.34). The heavy arm and cramped deck cost far more energy than any structural benefit, reinforcing the converged thin-arm, wide-deck-gap basin as correct. Worth biasing future immigrant draws toward thinner arm-thickness ranges to get more informative diversity.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.652	155.1	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.448	189.0	39.6°
crosswind	4.264	181.1	34.2°
gusty_light	4.084	173.5	33.0°
hot_thin	3.894	165.4	27.7°
storm	5.335	226.7	33.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.01
arm width	×1.02
arm waist	×1.06
arm thickness	5.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.02
front sweep	34.9°
rear sweep	38.9°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	29.0 mm
battery wedge	1.6°
plate thickness	×0.99
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 251599b0e1b2

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (petg)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	156.8 g
material	petg
born	generation 67 via immigrant

hypothesisAn immigrant probing a larger, more swept frame in PETG rather than carbon-fiber plate, testing whether a cheaper/more flexible material could still be viable if oversized for stiffness.

methodScaled up arm length (~1.18x) and width (~1.08x), thickened arms to 8.9mm, but cut tip thickness to ~0.55x and switched material to PETG, with a steep 9.7° battery wedge.

resultInvalid — arm tip deflection failure in PETG. Even with a much thicker arm body, the thinned tip couldn't handle PETG's lower stiffness under load. Teaches that tip thickness needs to scale with material stiffness, not just body thickness; a future PETG immigrant should keep tip thickness closer to full scale.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.18
arm width	×1.08
arm waist	×0.81
arm thickness	8.9 mm
tip thickness	×0.55
arm cutouts	×0.11
front sweep	39.4°
rear sweep	35.6°
plate length	×1.11
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	35.9 mm
battery wedge	9.7°
plate thickness	×1.20
material	petg

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 9f1ae9c78513

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm overstressed (pet_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	78.1 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 67 via immigrant

hypothesisAn immigrant testing a slender, elongated arm in a pet_cf blend material, exploring whether a lighter alternative material could match carbon-fiber-plate performance with a longer, narrower arm.

methodLengthened arms to ~1.17x while narrowing width to ~0.70x, cut tip thickness to ~0.54x, switched material to pet_cf, and applied a steep 10.7° battery wedge with a tight 27.2mm deck gap.

resultInvalid — arm overstressed in pet_cf. The narrow, long-arm geometry exceeded pet_cf's strength margin, mirroring candidate 251599b0e1b2's PETG failure. Teaches that alternative materials need conservative, not aggressive, arm width/tip reductions until their strength margins are separately characterized; next attempt should trial pet_cf on the champion's stock arm proportions instead of an aggressive resize.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.17
arm width	×0.70
arm waist	×0.48
arm thickness	3.1 mm
tip thickness	×0.54
arm cutouts	×0.17
front sweep	34.9°
rear sweep	44.9°
plate length	×1.19
plate width	×1.10
deck gap	27.2 mm
battery wedge	10.7°
plate thickness	×1.19
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 1fc3ac458e49

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.842 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.2% better
scenario mean	3.600 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.482 Wh/km
frame mass	60.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 66 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents were already close to the leading edge, so this cross bets on a conservative blend that preserves the stronger parent's layout almost untouched.

methodCrossover produced genes nearly identical to the fitter parent, with no dimension shifting meaningfully.

resultFitness matched at 5.842, essentially reproducing the stronger parent exactly and confirming that parent's design is stable under blending, but it still falls short of the 5.839 best-so-far. Since blending keeps regressing to the parent rather than improving on it, next worth trying a targeted mutation on a single gene (like deck gap or arm waist) instead of another crossover in this pocket.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.091	131.3	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.708	157.5	37.5°
crosswind	3.575	151.9	32.6°
gusty_light	3.449	146.5	31.8°
hot_thin	3.297	140.1	27.1°
storm	4.482	190.4	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.46
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.1°
rear sweep	43.1°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.8°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d7374e00b9ed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.842 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.2% better
scenario mean	3.601 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.483 Wh/km
frame mass	60.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 65 via pivot

hypothesisThe parent (5.854) was solid but carried a slightly heavier arm, so the bet was that shortening it and adding some battery tilt while easing the rear sweep would trim mass the way other pivots this generation had.

methodShortened the arm length slightly, widened the plate marginally, doubled the battery wedge angle, and eased the rear sweep.

resultFitness improved to 5.842, beating the parent's 5.854 and the old best-so-far of 5.851, landing just behind this generation's new winner at 5.839. Its gene set closely echoes the winning pivot's arm-shortening direction, suggesting the same improvement was independently rediscovered. Worth testing next: drop the battery-wedge increase, which looks unnecessary, and see if arm-shortening alone reaches the same fitness more cheaply.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.091	131.3	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.708	157.5	37.5°
crosswind	3.575	151.9	32.6°
gusty_light	3.449	146.5	31.8°
hot_thin	3.297	140.1	27.1°
storm	4.483	190.4	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.46
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.1°
rear sweep	43.1°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.8°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a8a8640d9a4e

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.849 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.1% better
scenario mean	3.605 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.490 Wh/km
frame mass	60.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 65 via crossover

hypothesisThe parents (5.851, 5.854) sat right at the plateau, so the bet was that a slightly steeper front sweep combined with a touch more arm length and a thinner cross-section would trade sweep for length efficiently.

methodSteepened the front sweep, lengthened the arm slightly, and thinned the arm cross-section.

resultFitness improved to 5.849, beating both parents and the old best-so-far of 5.851, though it falls short of this generation's new winner at 5.839. The front-sweep/arm-length trade-off looks like a genuinely useful direction distinct from the arm-shortening trend seen elsewhere this generation. Worth testing next: combine this front-sweep increase with the winning candidate's material-blend shift to see if the two independent gains stack.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.093	131.4	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.717	157.9	37.6°
crosswind	3.577	152.0	32.7°
gusty_light	3.453	146.7	31.9°
hot_thin	3.299	140.2	27.2°
storm	4.490	190.7	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.82
arm width	×0.91
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.8°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 13cc64e0b6dcnew best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.851 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.0% better
scenario mean	3.606 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.490 Wh/km
frame mass	60.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 63 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the generation's leading design with a weaker but differently-shaped partner, betting that a small dose of arm material removal (cutouts, present in the weaker parent) could shave weight without sacrificing the leader's stability.

methodIntroduced a small nonzero arm-cutout fraction, trimmed arm width slightly, and nudged battery wedge up a touch, while keeping the rest of the winning arm and sweep geometry intact.

resultNEW WINNER at 5.851, improving on the incoming best-so-far of 5.8527 and edging out both parents — calm_warm and gusty_light both ticked down fractionally, suggesting the tiny cutout shaved mass without opening a new weak point. Next: try scaling the cutout fraction up further to see if the improvement continues or hits a cliff.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.094	131.5	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.716	157.9	37.6°
crosswind	3.579	152.0	32.7°
gusty_light	3.454	146.7	31.8°
hot_thin	3.301	140.2	27.1°
storm	4.490	190.8	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.91
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 8496623657c2

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.854 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.0% better
scenario mean	3.607 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.493 Wh/km
frame mass	61.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 66 via mutation

hypothesisThe parent was mid-pack, so this mutation bets that small, near-invisible perturbations might still find a slightly better fitness pocket nearby.

methodGenes came out nearly identical to the parent, with only negligible rounding-level differences across all dimensions.

resultFitness came in at 5.854, essentially flat with the parent's 5.853 and still behind the 5.839 best-so-far. A mutation this small isn't going to escape the local plateau; next worth applying a larger, deliberate perturbation to one high-leverage gene like plate thickness or deck gap rather than a near-null mutation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.096	131.5	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.717	157.9	37.6°
crosswind	3.580	152.1	32.7°
gusty_light	3.455	146.8	31.8°
hot_thin	3.302	140.3	27.1°
storm	4.493	190.9	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 4c2f11c1e6dd

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.854 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.0% better
scenario mean	3.607 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.494 Wh/km
frame mass	60.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 66 via crossover

hypothesisParents disagreed on arm waist and battery tilt, so this cross bets that pairing the tighter waist with a nearly level battery would balance thrust efficiency and pitch trim.

methodArm waist taper was loosened slightly, battery wedge angle was flattened from about half a degree to near zero, arm length shortened a touch, and the material blend was nudged toward pure carbon fiber.

resultCame in at 5.854, worse than both parents (5.845 and 5.851) and short of the 5.839 best-so-far. Flattening the battery wedge may have cost a bit of trim efficiency without a compensating gain elsewhere; next worth re-testing the tighter waist alone against a parent-matched battery wedge to isolate which change actually hurt.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.091	131.3	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.724	158.2	37.6°
crosswind	3.580	152.1	32.6°
gusty_light	3.454	146.8	31.9°
hot_thin	3.298	140.1	27.2°
storm	4.494	190.9	29.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.91
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.2°
rear sweep	43.2°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	38.7 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 3f605bcdd0b2

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.855 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.0% better
scenario mean	3.609 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.493 Wh/km
frame mass	60.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 66 via crossover

hypothesisOne parent sat essentially at the best-so-far mark, so this cross bets that loosening the arm waist slightly while tightening the deck gap would find extra margin near that optimum.

methodArm waist taper loosened from about 0.43 to 0.48, deck gap tightened by about 0.7 mm, material shifted marginally toward pure carbon fiber, and arm width narrowed slightly.

resultFitness came in at 5.855, worse than both parents (5.839 and 5.845) and short of the 5.839 best-so-far. Loosening the waist taper away from the near-optimal parent's value looks like the likely culprit, since it moved furthest from the strongest parent's genome; next worth re-testing the tighter deck gap alone while keeping the waist taper fixed at the top parent's value.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.100	131.7	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.717	157.9	37.5°
crosswind	3.581	152.1	32.7°
gusty_light	3.457	146.8	31.8°
hot_thin	3.306	140.4	27.1°
storm	4.493	190.9	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.81
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.48
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.1°
rear sweep	43.2°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	38.1 mm
battery wedge	0.5°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 591295fbf339

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.856 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.0% better
scenario mean	3.609 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.494 Wh/km
frame mass	61.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 66 via crossover

hypothesisBet was that lengthening the arm slightly, borrowed from the weaker parent, would improve prop clearance or leverage without giving up the stronger parent's other traits.

methodArm length increased about 6% relative to the shorter parent, with plate length left essentially unchanged.

resultFitness rose to 5.856, worse than both parents (5.842 and 5.845) and behind the 5.839 best-so-far — the longer arm added mass and drag without a compensating gain. Next worth testing a smaller, intermediate arm-length increase to find whether there's a sweet spot between the two parents' lengths rather than jumping straight to the longer extreme.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.098	131.6	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.717	157.9	37.7°
crosswind	3.583	152.2	32.7°
gusty_light	3.457	146.9	31.9°
hot_thin	3.304	140.4	27.1°
storm	4.494	190.9	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.46
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.1°
rear sweep	43.1°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.8°
plate thickness	×0.66
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 6397c5a46e82

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.859 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.9% better
scenario mean	3.610 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.497 Wh/km
frame mass	61.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 66 via crossover

hypothesisBet was that combining one parent's slightly wider plate with the other's shorter arm would find a lighter, more balanced layout than either alone.

methodPlate width increased about 2%, battery wedge tilt nearly tripled to 0.8°, and arm length shrank about 2.5%.

resultFitness landed at 5.859, worse than both parents (5.845 and 5.853) and off the 5.839 best-so-far. The steeper battery wedge combined with a shorter arm may have hurt trim more than the wider plate helped; next worth testing the wider plate with the original, shallower battery wedge to separate the two effects.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.096	131.5	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.722	158.1	37.5°
crosswind	3.587	152.4	32.7°
gusty_light	3.458	146.9	31.8°
hot_thin	3.303	140.3	27.1°
storm	4.497	191.0	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	37.9 mm
battery wedge	0.8°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 8b35718bb6e2

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.859 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.9% better
scenario mean	3.611 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.496 Wh/km
frame mass	60.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 66 via crossover

hypothesisWith one parent close to the leading edge, the bet was that trimming plate thickness slightly while tightening the deck gap would shed a little weight without losing rigidity.

methodDeck gap narrowed by half a millimeter, arm width increased about 1%, and plate thickness dropped by roughly 1.5%.

resultFitness came in at 5.859, worse than both parents (5.842 and 5.853) and short of the 5.839 best-so-far. The small plate-thickness cut apparently wasn't enough to offset whatever the deck-gap and arm-width shifts cost; next worth testing the deck-gap change in isolation since it's the one still unexplored on its own in this lineage.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.100	131.7	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.721	158.1	37.7°
crosswind	3.584	152.2	32.7°
gusty_light	3.459	146.9	31.9°
hot_thin	3.306	140.4	27.2°
storm	4.496	191.0	29.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.93
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.5 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.64
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 3ab0dc698a33

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.870 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.8% better
scenario mean	3.617 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.505 Wh/km
frame mass	61.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 66 via crossover

hypothesisWith both parents mid-pack, the bet was that widening the deck gap and thickening the plate slightly would trade a bit of mass for stiffness that pays off in the windier scenarios.

methodDeck gap opened by about 1.5 mm, plate thickness increased roughly 5%, and arm cutout holes were removed entirely versus one parent.

resultFitness rose to 5.87, worse than both parents (5.849 and 5.852) and well off the 5.839 best-so-far. The extra plate mass from the thicker plate and closed cutouts likely outweighed any stiffness gain, showing this population doesn't want more plate material right now — next worth testing a deck-gap widening on its own, isolated from the plate-thickness change, to see which factor actually hurt.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.103	131.8	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.730	158.4	37.7°
crosswind	3.591	152.6	32.8°
gusty_light	3.465	147.2	31.9°
hot_thin	3.310	140.6	27.1°
storm	4.505	191.4	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.82
arm width	×0.91
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.8°
rear sweep	43.4°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	39.5 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.68
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 8a55cf122548

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.877 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.7% better
scenario mean	3.622 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.510 Wh/km
frame mass	62.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 66 via mutation

hypothesisThe parent was mid-pack, so this mutation bets that widening the plate slightly and shifting toward a heavier material blend would buy stiffness that offsets the added mass.

methodPlate width grew about 2%, plate thickness increased roughly 8%, the material mix shifted further from pure carbon fiber, and the deck gap tightened by about 0.8 mm.

resultFitness worsened to 5.877 versus the parent's 5.855, and stayed well behind the 5.839 best-so-far. The thicker plate and heavier material blend clearly added more mass penalty than stiffness benefit; next worth testing the deck-gap tightening alone against an unchanged plate thickness.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.108	132.1	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.731	158.5	37.6°
crosswind	3.595	152.7	32.6°
gusty_light	3.470	147.4	31.8°
hot_thin	3.316	140.9	27.1°
storm	4.510	191.6	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×0.99
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	43.4°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	37.3 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate fd76a7edcf26

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.900 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.3% better
scenario mean	3.635 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.529 Wh/km
frame mass	64.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 66 via crossover

hypothesisOne parent sat right at the best-so-far mark, so this cross bets that beefing up the arm for extra stiffness in gusts would shave time off the worst-case storm penalty.

methodArm thickness jumped from 2.5 mm to 2.9 mm, arm width grew about 3%, the deck gap tightened by 1.5 mm, and a few more lightening cutouts were added.

resultFitness jumped to 5.9, the worst result in this batch and clearly behind both parents (5.839 and 5.842) and the 5.839 best-so-far, with every scenario reading uniformly higher. The extra arm mass from the thicker, wider arm evidently outweighed any stiffness benefit even with the added cutouts trying to compensate; next worth testing the tighter deck gap and extra cutouts alone, without the thickness increase, since those may have been the useful part of this change.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.117	132.4	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.748	159.2	37.5°
crosswind	3.609	153.3	32.6°
gusty_light	3.482	147.9	31.8°
hot_thin	3.326	141.3	27.1°
storm	4.529	192.4	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.95
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.9 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.02
front sweep	36.3°
rear sweep	43.1°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	36.4 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.66
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 92aee5230f2c✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.904 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.3% better
scenario mean	3.639 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.531 Wh/km
frame mass	65.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 66 via designer

hypothesisWith the population converging tightly around similar arm and plate proportions, the designer bets on a deliberately different structural concept — a slimmer arm cross-section paired with a much thicker plate — to see if a stiffer core with lighter limbs opens a new region of the design space.

methodArm width was cut sharply (down around 15% versus the population norm), arm waist taper loosened to roughly 0.55, and plate thickness was pushed up about 30% versus the typical converged value, with no parent lineage — a fresh injected design.

resultFitness came in at 5.904, the worst result in this generation and clearly behind the 5.839 best-so-far, with every scenario reading higher than the converged cluster. The much thicker plate likely added more mass penalty than the slimmer arm saved, teaching that this generation's population has already found a better arm-width/plate-thickness balance than this concept explores; next worth testing the slimmer arm width alone against the population's normal (thinner) plate thickness, since the arm change and plate change were never isolated from each other here.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.125	132.7	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.745	159.1	37.3°
crosswind	3.612	153.4	32.5°
gusty_light	3.486	148.1	31.7°
hot_thin	3.334	141.6	27.1°
storm	4.531	192.5	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	43.1°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.9 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 4c99fc85e1c2

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.845 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.1% better
scenario mean	3.603 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.485 Wh/km
frame mass	60.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 65 via pivot

hypothesisThe parent sat right at the plateau, so the bet was that widening the plate slightly while shortening it and trimming the waist further could redistribute mass more efficiently than the parent's proportions.

methodWidened the plate a bit while shortening it slightly, shifted the material blend further toward carbon-fiber plate, and thinned the arm waist a touch more.

resultFitness improved to 5.845 versus the parent's 5.859, beating the old best-so-far of 5.851, but ec53169beaa7 had already claimed 5.839 earlier this generation so it isn't the new leader. The plate width/length trade-off direction looks sound, just slightly less effective than the arm-length trim that won. Worth testing next: combine this plate-width bump with the winning candidate's shorter arm length to see if the two mass-saving moves stack.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.094	131.5	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.712	157.7	37.5°
crosswind	3.575	151.9	32.6°
gusty_light	3.451	146.6	31.8°
hot_thin	3.300	140.2	27.1°
storm	4.485	190.5	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.81
arm width	×0.91
arm waist	×0.43
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.1°
rear sweep	43.2°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	38.8 mm
battery wedge	0.5°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 613efda14bd9

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.851 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.0% better
scenario mean	3.606 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.491 Wh/km
frame mass	60.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 65 via crossover

hypothesisThe parents (5.851, 5.854) bracketed the plateau, so the bet was that trimming plate length and arm length together, plus a touch more cutout material removal, could shave a bit more mass.

methodShortened the plate length slightly, shortened the arm length slightly, added a touch more arm cutout, and narrowed the deck gap slightly.

resultFitness held at 5.851, matching the better parent and the old best-so-far exactly but not surpassing either or this generation's new winner. The changes were essentially mass-neutral in aggregate. Worth testing next: push the arm-cutout increase further on its own, since it moved in the right direction but too timidly here to register.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.095	131.5	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.717	157.9	37.7°
crosswind	3.576	151.9	32.7°
gusty_light	3.454	146.7	31.9°
hot_thin	3.301	140.2	27.2°
storm	4.491	190.8	29.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.91
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.02
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.7 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate ac19d20e0e0b

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.852 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.0% better
scenario mean	3.606 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.492 Wh/km
frame mass	59.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 65 via crossover

hypothesisThe parent (5.851) was tied for the prior best-so-far, so this self-cross explored nearby mutations to see if loosening the tip and widening the waist slightly could find a better nearby point on the plateau.

methodThinned the tip slightly, eased the rear sweep, widened the arm waist a bit, and narrowed the arm width slightly.

resultFitness landed at 5.852, essentially unchanged from the parent's 5.851, with no scenario moving meaningfully — confirming the plateau is flat in this direction. Worth testing next: apply the material-blend shift that worked for this generation's new winner to this same parent instead of these tip/waist tweaks.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.093	131.4	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.720	158.0	37.7°
crosswind	3.578	152.0	32.7°
gusty_light	3.454	146.7	31.9°
hot_thin	3.300	140.2	27.2°
storm	4.492	190.8	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.50
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×0.97
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.6°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.64
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 0ccd0db07aa6

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.853 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.0% better
scenario mean	3.607 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.492 Wh/km
frame mass	61.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 63 via elite

hypothesisWith this lineage already sitting at the generation's leading fitness, the point of this elite slot is simply to protect that performance while other branches take bigger risks.

methodA near-exact carry-over of the parent's short, tightly-waisted carbon-fiber arm and sweep geometry, with only rounding-level drift in the numbers.

resultReproduced the parent's 5.853 almost exactly, matching but not beating the incoming best-so-far of 5.8527 — the plateau holds. Worth testing next: nudge the arm-cutout fraction off zero, since that's the lever that finally broke the plateau elsewhere this generation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.095	131.5	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.716	157.9	37.6°
crosswind	3.580	152.1	32.7°
gusty_light	3.455	146.8	31.8°
hot_thin	3.302	140.3	27.1°
storm	4.492	190.8	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b6f53eeff013

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.854 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.0% better
scenario mean	3.608 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.492 Wh/km
frame mass	61.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 65 via pivot

hypothesisThe parent was competitive but its arm waist looked oversized relative to sibling candidates, so the bet was that a much thinner waist paired with a steeper front sweep and shallower rear sweep would cut mass further.

methodThinned the arm waist noticeably, steepened the front sweep, eased the rear sweep, and thickened the arm cross-section slightly.

resultFitness came in at 5.854, essentially flat with the parent's 5.853 and short of the generation's leaders. The added arm thickness likely offset whatever the thinner waist saved, netting no real gain. Worth testing next: keep the thinner waist but drop the arm-thickness increase to isolate whether the waist change alone would have helped.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.098	131.6	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.715	157.8	37.6°
crosswind	3.583	152.2	32.7°
gusty_light	3.457	146.9	31.9°
hot_thin	3.304	140.4	27.1°
storm	4.492	190.8	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.40
arm thickness	2.7 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.5°
rear sweep	42.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.4 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 33eceba4f8a2

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.855 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.0% better
scenario mean	3.608 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.494 Wh/km
frame mass	61.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 64 via crossover

hypothesisWith one parent (1d9c3ade26c5) invalid, this crossover really just re-tests whether the surviving elite genome (30a97e96c273, 5.855) holds up intact.

methodGenes essentially identical to 30a97e96c273, with only deck gap nudged to 38.1mm from 38.0mm.

resultTied the valid parent exactly at 5.855, still short of best-so-far (5.851). Another data point that deck gap tweaks in the 37.9-38.2mm range are all fitness-neutral. Next: abandon deck-gap perturbations for a while and try mutating plate thickness or tip thickness instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.096	131.5	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.719	158.0	37.6°
crosswind	3.581	152.1	32.7°
gusty_light	3.456	146.8	31.8°
hot_thin	3.303	140.3	27.1°
storm	4.494	190.9	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.48
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.1 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 2175419c5756

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.859 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.9% better
scenario mean	3.611 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.497 Wh/km
frame mass	61.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 65 via crossover

hypothesisThe parents (5.86, 5.855) were near-identical, so this crossover mostly tested recombination noise rather than a deliberate design bet — whether blending two already-similar genomes could still find a small edge.

methodGenes came out nearly identical to both parents, with only trace-level differences in deck gap and rounding.

resultFitness landed at 5.859, between the two parents but improving on neither, and well short of the best-so-far. This confirms the cross added essentially no new information since the parents were already so similar. Worth testing next: pair a near-identical parent like this with a more genetically distant one to inject real variation instead of another near-duplicate cross.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.098	131.6	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.722	158.1	37.6°
crosswind	3.585	152.3	32.7°
gusty_light	3.458	146.9	31.8°
hot_thin	3.305	140.4	27.1°
storm	4.497	191.0	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.48
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.2 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 176d6810fa7d

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.860 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.9% better
scenario mean	3.611 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.497 Wh/km
frame mass	61.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 64 via crossover

hypothesisWith 30a97e96c273 (5.855) and afc5d2384c50 (5.854) essentially tied at the plateau, this test isolates whether deck gap has room to widen without cost.

methodDeck gap opened slightly to 38.2mm from 38.0mm, all else matched to the parents.

resultCame in at 5.86, a touch worse than both parents — the wider gap added drag/mass with no offsetting gain. Deck gap near 38.0mm looks like a local optimum from both directions now. Next: try narrowing deck gap toward 36-37mm instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.099	131.6	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.722	158.1	37.6°
crosswind	3.586	152.3	32.7°
gusty_light	3.459	146.9	31.8°
hot_thin	3.305	140.4	27.1°
storm	4.497	191.1	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.48
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.2 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate ddc30b4e2b6e

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.863 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.9% better
scenario mean	3.613 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.499 Wh/km
frame mass	61.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 65 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents (5.854, 5.853) sat near the plateau, so the bet was that narrowing the deck gap and arm width while thickening the plate would find a leaner combination.

methodNarrowed the deck gap, narrowed the arm width, thinned the arm waist, and thickened the plate.

resultFitness worsened to 5.863, underperforming both parents and missing the best-so-far by a clear margin. The plate-thickness increase likely added more mass than the narrower deck gap and arm width saved. Worth testing next: keep the narrower deck gap but drop the plate-thickness increase to isolate that combination's effect.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.101	131.7	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.724	158.2	37.6°
crosswind	3.586	152.4	32.7°
gusty_light	3.461	147.0	31.9°
hot_thin	3.307	140.5	27.1°
storm	4.499	191.1	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.81
arm width	×0.88
arm waist	×0.44
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	36.9 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.68
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 8ad4f1fe84a1

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.938 Wh/km
vs baseline	13.8% better
scenario mean	3.660 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.556 Wh/km
frame mass	66.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 65 via pivot

hypothesisThe parent (5.887) was already a weaker performer showing signs of a stiffness deficit, so the bet was that opening the deck gap and thickening the arm would firm up handling in the harsher scenarios enough to justify the added mass.

methodWidened the deck gap substantially, added a bit of arm cutout, thinned the tip slightly, and thickened the arm cross-section noticeably.

resultFitness worsened to 5.938 versus the parent's already-mediocre 5.887, with every scenario including storm getting worse. The added mass from the thicker arm and wider deck clearly outweighed any stiffness benefit. Worth testing next: revert the arm-thickness increase and try the wider deck gap alone, since bundling several penalty-inducing changes made it impossible to isolate the culprit.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.143	133.5	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.772	160.2	37.8°
crosswind	3.635	154.4	32.8°
gusty_light	3.505	148.9	32.0°
hot_thin	3.351	142.4	27.2°
storm	4.556	193.5	29.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.91
arm waist	×0.49
arm thickness	2.9 mm
tip thickness	×0.96
arm cutouts	×0.05
front sweep	37.7°
rear sweep	42.9°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	41.9 mm
battery wedge	1.2°
plate thickness	×0.67
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 40a793713f44✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.415 Wh/km
vs baseline	6.8% better
scenario mean	3.951 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.928 Wh/km
frame mass	98.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 65 via designer

hypothesisWith the evolved population clustered tightly around a mass-minimization plateau, the designer bet was that a fundamentally stockier arm — much thicker, wider, and barely waisted — might trade printed mass for enough stiffness to win the storm and crosswind scenarios.

methodBuilt a fresh frame with notably shorter, wider, and far less waisted arms than the evolved population, plus nearly double the arm thickness of current champions.

resultFitness came in at 6.415, far behind the best-so-far of 5.839, with every scenario scoring worse than the evolved lineage. The thick, barely-waisted arm carries far more printed mass than any stiffness gain can repay in any scenario, confirming the evolved population's aggressive waisting is closer to the true optimum. Worth testing next: apply the evolved population's waist ratio to this stockier arm concept to isolate whether stiffness or raw bulk was the real intent.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.368	143.1	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.112	174.7	39.1°
crosswind	3.930	167.0	33.8°
gusty_light	3.775	160.4	32.7°
hot_thin	3.594	152.7	27.6°
storm	4.928	209.4	32.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.85
arm width	×1.05
arm waist	×0.95
arm thickness	4.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.30
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate e8accf0753fd✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.513 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.4% better
scenario mean	4.010 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.005 Wh/km
frame mass	105.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 65 via designer

hypothesisThe designer bet was that a longer arm and a substantially larger plate footprint could improve stability enough in adverse scenarios like crosswind and storm to offset the added mass, exploring a bigger-frame philosophy distinct from the evolved lineage's compact one.

methodBuilt a fresh frame with a notably longer arm, a much larger plate (both longer and wider), and a thick arm cross-section, keeping arm waisting only moderate rather than aggressive.

resultFitness came in at 6.513, the worst of this generation and well behind the best-so-far of 5.839, with every scenario worsening. The larger plate and longer arm added more mass than any stability benefit could recoup, reinforcing that the evolved lineage's compact, aggressively-waisted, thin-plate approach remains dominant. Worth testing next: isolate the longer arm without the plate-size increase, since bundling both large changes together obscures which one, if either, could have helped.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.399	144.4	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.203	178.6	40.2°
crosswind	4.001	170.0	34.8°
gusty_light	3.826	162.5	33.3°
hot_thin	3.628	154.1	27.9°
storm	5.005	212.6	35.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×1.00
arm waist	×0.65
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.10
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×1.18
plate width	×1.15
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 1ddf2071f455

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.853 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.0% better
scenario mean	3.607 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.492 Wh/km
frame mass	61.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 64 via mutation

hypothesisA conservative mutation off 0ccd0db07aa6 (5.853, near the top of the cluster) testing whether tiny waist noise can find any residual improvement in a genome that's already near-optimal.

methodArm waist nudged to ×0.47 from ×0.46, with everything else unchanged.

resultMatched the parent exactly at 5.853 — fitness-neutral. Confirms the elite genome sits in a flat basin where sub-1% waist changes don't move the needle. Next: try a larger, deliberate waist perturbation (±5%) instead of noise-level steps to actually probe the basin's edges.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.096	131.5	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.716	157.9	37.6°
crosswind	3.581	152.1	32.7°
gusty_light	3.456	146.8	31.8°
hot_thin	3.302	140.3	27.1°
storm	4.492	190.8	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 19625b2f6055

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.854 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.0% better
scenario mean	3.607 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.493 Wh/km
frame mass	61.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 64 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing 30a97e96c273 (5.855) with the marginally better 0ccd0db07aa6 (5.853) checks whether the elite cluster — whose members are almost gene-identical — has any slack left to give.

methodGenes essentially unchanged from the stronger parent — another near-identical crossover.

resultMatched the stronger parent almost exactly at 5.854, just short of best-so-far (5.851). Confirms the cluster has flattened: recombining near-clones just reproduces ~5.85-5.86 repeatedly. Next: needs an actual mutation on a gene this cluster hasn't varied yet, such as arm waist or tip thickness, rather than more crossovers.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.096	131.5	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.717	157.9	37.6°
crosswind	3.581	152.1	32.7°
gusty_light	3.455	146.8	31.9°
hot_thin	3.303	140.3	27.1°
storm	4.493	190.9	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.48
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate ce55342a4835

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.854 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.0% better
scenario mean	3.608 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.493 Wh/km
frame mass	60.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 64 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents (6db70c32221a 5.854, b188bca6f7ae 5.866) already sit near the top; this crossover mostly checks whether the elite genome reproduces cleanly rather than seeking a new bet.

methodGenes came through essentially unchanged from the stronger parent — a near-identical crossover.

resultMatched the better parent almost exactly at 5.854, still short of best-so-far (5.851). Confirms the elite recipe is stable under recombination but recombining near-clones alone won't break the plateau. Next: force a deliberate mutation on an untouched gene like plate thickness rather than relying on more crossovers among clones.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.096	131.5	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.720	158.0	37.7°
crosswind	3.580	152.1	32.7°
gusty_light	3.455	146.8	31.9°
hot_thin	3.302	140.3	27.2°
storm	4.493	190.9	29.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.46
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.0°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 6db70c32221a

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.854 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.0% better
scenario mean	3.608 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.493 Wh/km
frame mass	60.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 63 via crossover

hypothesisRecombining two of the closest-to-best parents to see if their small genetic differences could compound into a joint improvement.

methodRear sweep nudged up slightly, battery wedge bumped a touch, arm width trimmed marginally.

result5.854, matching the better parent almost exactly but not improving on it. Next: this pairing looks saturated; better to bring in the arm-cutout idea from 13cc64e0b6dc instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.096	131.5	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.720	158.0	37.7°
crosswind	3.580	152.1	32.7°
gusty_light	3.455	146.8	31.9°
hot_thin	3.302	140.3	27.2°
storm	4.493	190.9	29.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.46
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.1°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 81d77d40a723

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.858 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.9% better
scenario mean	3.610 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.496 Wh/km
frame mass	61.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 64 via crossover

hypothesisParent 30a97e96c273 sits right at the plateau (5.855) while 73dbaa8da714 lags (5.898); this crossover bets that nudging arm width slightly further down can push the champion's thin-arm recipe past the plateau.

methodArm width trimmed a touch further, from ×0.92 to ×0.93, with the rest of the genome matched to the stronger parent.

resultLanded at 5.858 — essentially flat versus the 5.855 parent and no threat to best-so-far (5.851). The tiny width change did nothing across scenarios (crosswind 3.58, storm 4.5 unchanged), suggesting arm width is already dialed in near its local optimum. Worth testing width in the other direction next, toward ×0.88-0.90, to map the other side of the basin.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.097	131.6	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.720	158.0	37.6°
crosswind	3.583	152.2	32.7°
gusty_light	3.458	146.9	31.8°
hot_thin	3.304	140.4	27.1°
storm	4.496	191.0	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.93
arm waist	×0.48
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.9 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate e11b88c67c75

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.859 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.9% better
scenario mean	3.611 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.496 Wh/km
frame mass	60.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 64 via crossover

hypothesisWith afc5d2384c50 (5.854) and 0ccd0db07aa6 (5.853) both near-elite, this test probes whether shifting the material blend and rear sweep together can eke out a further gain.

methodMaterial blend shifted from 0.04 to 0.07, rear sweep pulled back to 42.7° (from 43.1°), and plate thickness upped slightly to ×0.66 (from ×0.65).

resultCame in at 5.859, slightly worse than both parents across nearly every scenario. Rear sweep in the low-43° range and thickness at ×0.65 look already tuned, so this combined shift was a net loss. Next: isolate the material-blend change alone, without touching sweep or thickness, to see if it's neutral or actively harmful on its own.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.101	131.7	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.720	158.0	37.7°
crosswind	3.583	152.2	32.7°
gusty_light	3.459	146.9	31.9°
hot_thin	3.307	140.5	27.2°
storm	4.496	191.0	29.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.91
arm waist	×0.46
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.1°
rear sweep	42.7°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.9 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.66
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 2f14897adbd4

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.867 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.8% better
scenario mean	3.615 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.503 Wh/km
frame mass	61.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 64 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing plateau leader 30a97e96c273 (5.855) with weaker 275827ce5e61 (5.88) bets that borrowing a slightly wider arm and different material blend could push past the plateau.

methodArm width opened to ×0.94 (from ×0.92), material blend shifted to 0.07 (from 0.08), and rear sweep pulled back to 43.2° (from 43.5°); plate length unchanged.

resultLanded at 5.867, worse than the stronger parent — the wider arm and altered material blend added cost without benefit, echoing candidate 81d77d40a723's finding that arm width is already near its optimum around ×0.90-0.92. Next: stop widening arm width in crossovers and focus recombination on unexplored genes like tip thickness or plate thickness.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.100	131.7	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.729	158.4	37.7°
crosswind	3.588	152.4	32.8°
gusty_light	3.463	147.1	31.9°
hot_thin	3.307	140.5	27.2°
storm	4.503	191.3	29.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.94
arm waist	×0.48
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	43.2°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b29b0b1ef418

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.887 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.5% better
scenario mean	3.629 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.516 Wh/km
frame mass	62.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 64 via crossover

hypothesisPairing elite 6db70c32221a (5.854) with weaker, more tilted 0a85bf0a63b2 (5.911) bet that borrowing its battery-wedge trait could help balance without dragging the champion's arm geometry down.

methodBattery wedge jumped to 1.1° from 0.4°, tip thickness trimmed to ×0.99, plate width nudged to ×1.01, and rear sweep pulled back to 43.1°.

resultFitness fell to 5.887, worse than the stronger parent, with crosswind (3.6) and storm (4.52) both up. The steep battery wedge inherited from the weak parent looks like the main liability. Lesson: don't inherit battery-wedge traits from underperforming parents. Next: keep wedge near 0.3-0.4° in future crossovers regardless of which parent it comes from.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.116	132.4	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.739	158.9	37.7°
crosswind	3.604	153.1	32.7°
gusty_light	3.476	147.7	31.9°
hot_thin	3.321	141.1	27.2°
storm	4.516	191.9	29.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.46
arm thickness	2.7 mm
tip thickness	×0.99
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.2°
rear sweep	43.1°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	1.1°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 9ba0afe66c30

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.915 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.1% better
scenario mean	3.645 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.540 Wh/km
frame mass	65.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 64 via mutation

hypothesis73dbaa8da714 was the weaker parent (5.898); the bet was that a stiffer arm and different material blend could recover ground toward the elite cluster.

methodRear sweep opened to 43.3° (from 42.6°), arm thickness increased to 2.9mm (from 2.7mm), material blend shifted from 0.04 to 0.02, and arm width tightened to ×0.93.

resultFitness worsened to 5.915, even below its own parent (5.898) — the added arm mass outweighed any sweep benefit. This reconfirms the elite family wants thin arms (~2.6mm), not thicker ones. Next: test the rear-sweep change alone on a thin arm to isolate its true effect.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.124	132.7	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.762	159.8	37.7°
crosswind	3.621	153.8	32.8°
gusty_light	3.491	148.3	31.9°
hot_thin	3.333	141.6	27.2°
storm	4.540	192.9	29.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.93
arm waist	×0.48
arm thickness	2.9 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	43.3°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.6°
plate thickness	×0.66
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 21ea4c8dee11

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.938 Wh/km
vs baseline	13.8% better
scenario mean	3.660 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.556 Wh/km
frame mass	66.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 64 via crossover

hypothesisPairing weak 0a85bf0a63b2 (5.911) with strong 13cc64e0b6dc (5.851, tied for best-so-far) bet that the strong parent's genome could absorb a few borrowed traits and still hold its performance.

methodPlate widened to ×1.02 (from ×1.00), deck gap opened to 39.1mm (from 38.0mm), arm thickened to 3.0mm (from 2.9mm), and cutouts increased slightly to ×0.16.

resultFell to 5.938, the worst valid result in this batch and well below both parents, with storm hitting 4.56 (this batch's worst). Stacking four changes at once compounded rather than cancelled, showing that a strong-x-weak crossover can inherit the weak parent's liabilities wholesale when too many genes shift together. Next: cross the strong parent with something closer to it, changing one gene at a time.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.142	133.5	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.770	160.1	37.8°
crosswind	3.636	154.5	32.8°
gusty_light	3.505	148.9	31.9°
hot_thin	3.350	142.3	27.2°
storm	4.556	193.6	29.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	3.0 mm
tip thickness	×0.85
arm cutouts	×0.16
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	39.1 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 9781908e7557

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.637 Wh/km
vs baseline	3.6% better
scenario mean	4.090 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.094 Wh/km
frame mass	111.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 64 via immigrant

hypothesisAnother immigrant, testing a bulkier, more heavily-cutout frame with a steep battery wedge as a structurally different alternative to the thin-arm elite family.

methodFresh genome: arm 26% wider and thicker (3.4mm), shorter deck gap (29.4mm), plate enlarged (×1.10 length, ×1.22 width), steep 2.0° battery wedge, and 40% arm cutouts, still in cf_plate.

resultValid but far off the pace at 6.637, with every scenario noticeably worse (storm 5.09, calm_warm 3.5). Confirms the bulkier, wider-plate design carries a real weight/drag penalty that the thin-arm elites have already optimized away. Next: seed immigrants closer to the elite cluster's arm dimensions and vary just one or two genes, rather than randomizing the whole genome.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.498	148.6	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.264	181.1	40.2°
crosswind	4.062	172.5	34.7°
gusty_light	3.898	165.6	33.3°
hot_thin	3.722	158.1	27.9°
storm	5.094	216.4	35.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.02
arm width	×1.26
arm waist	×1.06
arm thickness	3.4 mm
tip thickness	×0.52
arm cutouts	×0.40
front sweep	42.1°
rear sweep	39.3°
plate length	×1.10
plate width	×1.22
deck gap	29.4 mm
battery wedge	2.0°
plate thickness	×1.16
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 27f98116729b

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm overstressed (asa)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	68.4 g
material	asa
born	generation 64 via immigrant

hypothesisA pure immigrant, injected to probe far outside the converged elite cluster — longer, narrower arm, steep battery wedge, and ASA plastic instead of carbon-fiber plate — in case the population is stuck in a local optimum.

methodFresh genome: arm 29% longer and 36% narrower, thicker (2.8mm) with cutouts added, tip thinned to ×0.68, plate widened, steep 13.2° battery wedge, and printed in ASA instead of cf_plate.

resultInvalid — arm overstressed in ASA. The longer, thin-tipped arm combined with a weaker plastic couldn't carry the load. Confirms ASA needs either a shorter arm or thicker walls to be structurally viable at all. Next: re-test a similar exploratory geometry in cf_plate to see if the shape itself has merit once material strength isn't the limiter.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.29
arm width	×0.64
arm waist	×1.00
arm thickness	2.8 mm
tip thickness	×0.68
arm cutouts	×0.08
front sweep	30.9°
rear sweep	42.4°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×1.15
deck gap	41.9 mm
battery wedge	13.2°
plate thickness	×1.16
material	asa

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate afc5d2384c50

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.854 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.0% better
scenario mean	3.608 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.492 Wh/km
frame mass	60.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 63 via elite

hypothesisA second elite carried forward to hedge a near-best lineage while exploration continues on riskier branches.

methodEssentially a clone of the parent — arm width, waist, and sweep angles all within rounding noise of the source.

resultHeld at 5.854, same scenario profile as the rest of the plateaued cluster and still short of best-so-far. Next: try loosening the deck gap slightly, since this branch hasn't touched that gene yet.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.097	131.6	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.716	157.9	37.7°
crosswind	3.584	152.2	32.7°
gusty_light	3.457	146.8	31.9°
hot_thin	3.303	140.3	27.2°
storm	4.492	190.8	29.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.91
arm waist	×0.46
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.1°
rear sweep	43.1°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 8dbbfdecc18e

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.855 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.0% better
scenario mean	3.608 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.493 Wh/km
frame mass	60.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 63 via crossover

hypothesisBlending two near-plateau parents to see if a slightly longer plate and arm could shave a sliver off the leading fitness.

methodPlate length nudged up to 98%, arm length up to 81%, tip thickness trimmed a touch, with a tiny material-parameter shift.

resultLanded at 5.855, essentially flat versus both parents and still above best-so-far — the blend didn't unlock anything new. Next: pair this plate stretch with the small arm-cutout tweak that worked in 13cc64e0b6dc.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.096	131.5	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.718	157.9	37.5°
crosswind	3.581	152.1	32.7°
gusty_light	3.456	146.8	31.8°
hot_thin	3.303	140.3	27.1°
storm	4.493	190.9	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.81
arm width	×0.91
arm waist	×0.46
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×0.99
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.1°
rear sweep	43.1°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.9 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 30a97e96c273

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.855 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.0% better
scenario mean	3.608 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.494 Wh/km
frame mass	61.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 63 via crossover

hypothesisA self-crossover of a near-best individual, testing whether recombination noise alone could nudge out a small improvement.

methodNegligible change — waist tightened marginally versus the parent, everything else unchanged.

result5.855, statistically indistinguishable from the parent, no improvement. Next: this self-cross approach looks exhausted; better to cross across distinct sub-lineages instead of within one.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.096	131.5	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.718	157.9	37.6°
crosswind	3.581	152.1	32.7°
gusty_light	3.456	146.8	31.8°
hot_thin	3.303	140.3	27.1°
storm	4.494	190.9	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.48
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b188bca6f7ae

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.866 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.8% better
scenario mean	3.615 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.502 Wh/km
frame mass	60.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 63 via crossover

hypothesisTesting whether flattening the battery wedge to zero and tightening rear sweep and deck gap could trim losses in the two parents' shared weak scenarios.

methodRear sweep pulled back about a degree, battery wedge reset to zero, deck gap tightened slightly.

result5.866, worse than either parent — zeroing the battery wedge apparently cost more in storm and crosswind stability than it saved elsewhere. Next: revisit the battery wedge with small positive steps rather than resetting it to zero outright.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.102	131.8	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.727	158.3	37.7°
crosswind	3.589	152.5	32.7°
gusty_light	3.463	147.1	31.9°
hot_thin	3.308	140.6	27.2°
storm	4.502	191.3	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.48
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.4°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.6 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 275827ce5e61

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.880 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.6% better
scenario mean	3.623 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.512 Wh/km
frame mass	62.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 63 via crossover

hypothesisBlending a slightly wider-armed parent with the near-plateau lineage to see if a touch more width plus a small cutout could balance mass and rigidity.

methodArm width widened slightly, a small cutout fraction introduced, plate length trimmed a touch, rear sweep pulled back marginally.

result5.88, worse than both parents — the added width didn't pay for itself, and the small cutout alone wasn't enough to offset it, unlike in the eventual winner. Next: repeat this cross but hold arm width at the parent's slimmer value to isolate the cutout effect on its own.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.108	132.0	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.736	158.7	37.7°
crosswind	3.600	152.9	32.7°
gusty_light	3.470	147.4	31.9°
hot_thin	3.315	140.8	27.2°
storm	4.512	191.7	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.96
arm waist	×0.48
arm thickness	2.7 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.01
front sweep	36.3°
rear sweep	42.2°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.6°
plate thickness	×0.64
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 73dbaa8da714

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.898 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.4% better
scenario mean	3.635 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.527 Wh/km
frame mass	63.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 63 via crossover

hypothesisCombining two mid-pack parents' plate and sweep traits, betting the blend would land between their fitnesses or better.

methodPlate length stretched to 98%, front sweep pushed up about a degree, with the thicker arm and plate thickness inherited from one parent.

resultCame in at 5.898, worse than both parents — the crossover combined weaknesses rather than strengths, likely because the inherited thicker arm/plate added mass without enough stability payoff. Next: cross these plate genes against a leaner-armed parent instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.115	132.3	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.751	159.3	37.8°
crosswind	3.610	153.4	32.8°
gusty_light	3.481	147.9	32.0°
hot_thin	3.323	141.2	27.2°
storm	4.527	192.3	29.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.48
arm thickness	2.7 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	42.6°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.5°
plate thickness	×0.66
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 0a85bf0a63b2✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.911 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.2% better
scenario mean	3.643 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.537 Wh/km
frame mass	64.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 63 via designer

hypothesisA middle-ground designer probe between the other two designer variants, moderating waist width, tip thickness, and cutout fraction together to see if a balanced combination could beat either extreme.

methodArm waist set to 55%, tip thickness to 85%, arm thickness to 2.9mm, and a modest 15% cutout fraction.

result5.911, better than the other two designer attempts but still well off the plateaued leaders. Suggests the designer's search direction — thicker, wider arm roots — is fundamentally less efficient than the leaders' thin, tightly-waisted arms, regardless of tuning. Next: have the designer branch start from the current best-so-far genome and search the cutout fraction alone rather than from scratch.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.124	132.7	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.755	159.5	37.7°
crosswind	3.618	153.7	32.8°
gusty_light	3.489	148.2	31.9°
hot_thin	3.333	141.6	27.2°
storm	4.537	192.7	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	2.9 mm
tip thickness	×0.85
arm cutouts	×0.15
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 58619732be87✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.916 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.1% better
scenario mean	3.647 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.539 Wh/km
frame mass	65.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 63 via designer

hypothesisA designer-proposed variant testing whether a thicker arm cross-section paired with a meaningful cutout fraction could offset the extra stiffness-driven mass through material removal.

methodArm thickness increased to 3.0mm and cutouts raised to 28% of maximum, with waist and sweep held close to the leading lineage's values.

result5.916, worse than the plateaued leaders — the combination of thicker walls and heavy cutouts likely added net mass or introduced a stress concentration without matching the leaders' efficiency. Next: try the same thickness increase with a much smaller cutout fraction, closer to the tiny amount that worked in 13cc64e0b6dc.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.132	133.0	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.756	159.6	37.6°
crosswind	3.622	153.9	32.7°
gusty_light	3.493	148.4	31.9°
hot_thin	3.339	141.9	27.2°
storm	4.539	192.8	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	3.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.28
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 6a61b37c4864✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.972 Wh/km
vs baseline	13.3% better
scenario mean	3.680 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.583 Wh/km
frame mass	67.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 63 via designer

hypothesisA designer bet that a wider waist paired with a much thinner tip could redistribute mass toward the arm root and improve efficiency.

methodArm waist widened to 65% and tip thickness reduced to 62%, arm thickness bumped to 3.2mm, no cutouts.

result5.972, the weakest of the designer trio and off the leading pace across every scenario — the thin tip likely under-delivers stiffness right where gusts load the rotor mount. Next: keep the wider waist but restore tip thickness closer to full scale before testing again.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.158	134.2	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.795	161.2	37.9°
crosswind	3.655	155.3	32.9°
gusty_light	3.524	149.7	32.0°
hot_thin	3.368	143.1	27.2°
storm	4.583	194.7	29.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.65
arm thickness	3.2 mm
tip thickness	×0.62
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate fd6ec10c3150

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	7.394 Wh/km
vs baseline	7.4% worse
scenario mean	4.548 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.691 Wh/km
frame mass	147.8 g
material	asa
born	generation 63 via immigrant

hypothesisAn exploratory immigrant pushing toward a beefier, wider frame in a stiffer material, testing whether brute structural margin pays off energetically.

methodArms lengthened 32% and thickened to 8.2mm, width and waist widened, a steep battery wedge added, and material switched to asa.

resultValid but far worse at 7.394 — the added mass and drag from the oversized arms and steep wedge overwhelmed any structural benefit across every scenario, especially storm. Teaches that this generation's optimum is decisively in the lightweight thin-arm regime, not the heavy-duty one. Next: prune similarly oversized immigrants early rather than let them run full evaluation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.799	161.4	26.4°
cold_headwind	4.940	209.9	42.6°
crosswind	4.519	192.0	36.8°
gusty_light	4.300	182.7	35.8°
hot_thin	4.039	171.6	29.0°
storm	5.691	241.8	44.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.32
arm width	×1.02
arm waist	×1.28
arm thickness	8.2 mm
tip thickness	×0.76
arm cutouts	×0.25
front sweep	40.1°
rear sweep	38.0°
plate length	×0.88
plate width	×1.04
deck gap	32.6 mm
battery wedge	13.9°
plate thickness	×1.35
material	asa

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate adf79336df57

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm overstressed (pet_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	80.7 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 63 via immigrant

hypothesisA fresh immigrant testing whether a longer, thicker-armed pet_cf design with a straighter (less tapered) waist could open a new region of the landscape away from the plateaued cf_plate cluster.

methodLengthened the arms about 29%, thickened them to 3.2mm, eased the waist taper, and switched to pet_cf material, alongside a sizeable battery wedge and cutouts.

resultInvalid — arms overstressed even with the thicker cross-section under pet_cf. Teaches that pet_cf needs either more thickness margin or a gentler plate/deck-gap combo to survive this load case. Next: retry the same proportions in cf_plate to isolate whether it's the material or the geometry at fault.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.29
arm width	×1.02
arm waist	×0.64
arm thickness	3.2 mm
tip thickness	×0.97
arm cutouts	×0.46
front sweep	39.2°
rear sweep	40.9°
plate length	×1.28
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	24.1 mm
battery wedge	6.1°
plate thickness	×0.83
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate c00dca0c76c7

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm overstressed (pet_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	84.1 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 63 via immigrant

hypothesisAnother immigrant probing a bulkier, more swept pet_cf design in case a wider frame with more waist could handle load better than the earlier pet_cf attempt.

methodArms lengthened 24% and widened 16%, sweeps pushed toward 45-48 degrees, plate enlarged about 29%, pet_cf material.

resultInvalid — arm overstressed again. Two pet_cf immigrants now failing the same way strongly suggests pet_cf simply can't carry this arm-thickness range at these lengths. Next: only test pet_cf paired with arm thickness above roughly 4mm, or drop it from the immigrant pool for a few generations.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.24
arm width	×1.16
arm waist	×0.46
arm thickness	3.5 mm
tip thickness	×0.52
arm cutouts	×0.53
front sweep	44.9°
rear sweep	47.8°
plate length	×1.29
plate width	×1.17
deck gap	36.3 mm
battery wedge	6.5°
plate thickness	×0.83
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 1d9c3ade26c5

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm resonance with rotor 1P
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	151.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 63 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing a poor performer with a near-plateau parent to see if the weak parent's differently-scaled, thicker arms could still contribute something useful when blended in.

methodArm length pushed near full scale, thickness bumped to 6.4mm, waist barely tapered, and sweep angles pulled back several degrees versus the plateaued lineage.

resultInvalid — arm resonance with rotor 1P. The thicker, minimally-tapered arm combined with the pulled-back sweep landed right in a structural resonance band. Next: if revisiting thicker arms, keep sweep angles closer to the plateaued lineage's 36-44 degree range to dodge the resonance.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.02
arm width	×1.03
arm waist	×0.96
arm thickness	6.4 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.5°
rear sweep	35.7°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	29.0 mm
battery wedge	1.9°
plate thickness	×1.01
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 6f34a6d8b8a0new best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.853 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.0% better
scenario mean	3.607 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.492 Wh/km
frame mass	61.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 62 via crossover

hypothesisA self-cross of 7b72828ca192 (5.855), probing whether a further small tightening of the arm waist — the same lever that had just paid off elsewhere this generation — could push past the current frontier.

methodTightened the arm waist by a further fraction versus the parent, with every other gene held identical.

result5.853 — a NEW WINNER, the best fitness of the generation, edging past both the prior best-so-far (5.8547) and this generation's earlier record-setter (35eb65efe1f7 at 5.854). The arm-waist trim paying off across two independent lines this generation strongly suggests the population is converging on a slightly tighter waist as a genuine local optimum. Next worth testing: keep stepping the arm waist down in small increments from this new champion until the deflection wall starts to bite.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.095	131.5	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.716	157.9	37.6°
crosswind	3.580	152.1	32.7°
gusty_light	3.455	146.8	31.8°
hot_thin	3.302	140.3	27.1°
storm	4.492	190.8	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 35eb65efe1f7new best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.854 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.0% better
scenario mean	3.608 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.492 Wh/km
frame mass	60.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 62 via mutation

hypothesisParent f2101412c247 was already close to the record at 5.859; the bet was that tightening the arm waist a little further, with only a whisper of rear-sweep closing, could trim mass without crossing into the deflection limits that had killed thinner-waisted immigrants.

methodTightened the arm waist slightly, closed rear sweep by well under half a degree, and widened the arm cross-section marginally to compensate.

resultFitness 5.854 — a NEW WINNER, edging past the previous best-so-far (5.8547). Every scenario ticked down in a balanced way rather than trading one weather condition for another, suggesting the arm-waist/width pairing landed near a genuine structural sweet spot. Next worth testing: push the arm waist a fraction further, watching storm and cold_headwind closely for the first sign of the deflection wall.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.097	131.6	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.716	157.9	37.7°
crosswind	3.584	152.2	32.7°
gusty_light	3.457	146.8	31.9°
hot_thin	3.303	140.3	27.2°
storm	4.492	190.8	29.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.91
arm waist	×0.46
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.1°
rear sweep	43.1°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 7b72828ca192new best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.855 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.0% better
scenario mean	3.608 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.493 Wh/km
frame mass	61.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 61 via crossover

hypothesisParent 939e58c18328 (5.889) had already benefited from a thin arm waist; the bet was that cutting raw arm thickness too, independent of waist shape, would shave more mass before hitting the deflection limit.

methodSingle isolated change: arm thickness reduced from 2.8mm to 2.6mm, all other genes held at the parent's values.

resultLanded at 5.855 - a NEW WINNER, beating both the parent (5.889) and the prior best-so-far (5.8716). Every scenario improved slightly, though storm still costs the most (4.49 Wh/km). Worth pushing arm thickness further, to around 2.4-2.5mm, to find exactly where the deflection constraint starts to bite.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.096	131.5	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.718	157.9	37.6°
crosswind	3.581	152.1	32.7°
gusty_light	3.456	146.8	31.8°
hot_thin	3.303	140.3	27.1°
storm	4.493	190.9	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.48
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 81052cfa1daa

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.855 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.0% better
scenario mean	3.609 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.493 Wh/km
frame mass	61.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 62 via mutation

hypothesisParent e377f0f3cad7 sat at 5.876; the bet was that shaving arm thickness while adding a little back into plate thickness would shift structural duty toward the plate, which is less failure-prone than the arm tips.

methodThinned the arm gauge slightly, thickened the plate a touch to compensate, and widened the arm cross-section slightly.

result5.855, a solid gain over the 5.876 parent and essentially tied with the top of the population, just short of the 5.8547 best-so-far. The thin-arm/thick-plate rebalancing looks genuinely sound, moving load away from the more deflection-prone arm tips. Next worth testing: apply this same thin-arm/thick-plate trade to today's new best genomes (35eb65efe1f7 or 6f34a6d8b8a0) to see if the gains stack.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.099	131.7	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.715	157.8	37.6°
crosswind	3.581	152.1	32.7°
gusty_light	3.457	146.9	31.8°
hot_thin	3.306	140.4	27.1°
storm	4.493	190.9	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.95
arm waist	×0.48
arm thickness	2.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.4 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.67
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 075869c99e9b

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.857 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.9% better
scenario mean	3.610 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.495 Wh/km
frame mass	60.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 62 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents (7b72828ca192 at 5.855, f2101412c247 at 5.859) sat right at the current frontier; the bet was that a more compact fuselage stack via a shorter deck gap and slightly opened front sweep could nudge past them.

methodShrank the deck gap by under two millimeters and opened front sweep by roughly a degree, keeping the rest close to the leaner parent.

result5.857, landing between the two parents without improving on either, and short of the 5.8547 best-so-far. The deck-gap shrink and front-sweep opening appear to roughly cancel out rather than compound into a gain. Next worth testing: try the deck-gap shrink alone, without the front-sweep change, to see if it's a net positive in isolation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.097	131.6	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.720	158.1	37.7°
crosswind	3.585	152.3	32.7°
gusty_light	3.458	146.9	31.9°
hot_thin	3.304	140.4	27.2°
storm	4.495	191.0	29.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.48
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.8°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	36.3 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate f2101412c247

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.859 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.9% better
scenario mean	3.610 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.496 Wh/km
frame mass	60.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 61 via crossover

hypothesisCrossed the near-record parent d773d9589e16 with a weaker one, betting the strong parent's thinning traits would dominate while testing extra front sweep and a narrower arm for more savings.

methodIncreased front sweep by about a degree, narrowed arm width, shifted the material blend slightly, and cut arm thickness to 2.6mm.

resultScored 5.859, a strong improvement over both parents (5.872 and 5.965) and just 0.004 behind this generation's new best-so-far (5.855) - independently confirming 2.6mm arm thickness as a winning lever across lineages. Next: stack this narrower arm width onto the actual best-so-far genome to see if the two thinning moves compound.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.099	131.7	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.721	158.1	37.7°
crosswind	3.583	152.2	32.7°
gusty_light	3.458	146.9	31.9°
hot_thin	3.305	140.4	27.2°
storm	4.496	191.0	29.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.48
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.1°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 80ffacd9e24d

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.871 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.8% better
scenario mean	3.618 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.506 Wh/km
frame mass	62.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 62 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents sat in the mid-5.87–5.89 band without their plate and rear-sweep genes ever having been combined; the bet was that a slightly shorter plate paired with a tighter rear sweep from the fitter parent could shave a bit more off the cold and storm losses.

methodShrank the plate length a touch further than either parent, closed the rear sweep by about a degree, doubled the small battery wedge tilt, and nudged plate width up marginally.

resultLanded at 5.871, edging out both parents (5.872 and 5.889) but still short of the 5.8547 best-so-far, so no new winner. The tighter rear sweep likely trimmed a little drag without triggering the storm penalty seen in other crosses. Worth testing next: apply the same plate-length trim directly to the current champion genome rather than through this parent pair.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.104	131.8	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.729	158.4	37.6°
crosswind	3.592	152.6	32.7°
gusty_light	3.465	147.2	31.8°
hot_thin	3.311	140.6	27.1°
storm	4.506	191.4	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.94
arm waist	×0.48
arm thickness	2.7 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.3°
rear sweep	42.4°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.6°
plate thickness	×0.64
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 15580aef19da

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.875 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.7% better
scenario mean	3.621 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.510 Wh/km
frame mass	62.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 62 via crossover

hypothesisA self-cross of 0c8b8ef5f4cd (5.874) against itself, probing whether small jitter around a known-good genome could eke out a marginal gain.

methodNudged battery wedge and front sweep up slightly, bumped the composite material fraction a touch, and closed rear sweep by a fraction of a degree.

result5.875, essentially unchanged from the 5.874 parent and still short of the 5.8547 best-so-far — the small jitters cancelled out rather than compounding. This suggests 0c8b8ef5f4cd sits in a fairly flat local region where these particular knobs barely move the needle. Next worth testing: take one larger, deliberate step on a single gene (e.g. arm waist) from this parent instead of several simultaneous small nudges.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.104	131.8	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.736	158.7	37.7°
crosswind	3.596	152.8	32.8°
gusty_light	3.468	147.3	31.9°
hot_thin	3.311	140.7	27.2°
storm	4.510	191.6	29.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.2°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.5°
plate thickness	×0.62
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate f2a8bd3b3138

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.888 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.5% better
scenario mean	3.629 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.519 Wh/km
frame mass	63.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 62 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing 939e58c18328 (5.889) with the stronger 7b72828ca192 (5.855), betting the fitter parent's tighter plate length combined with a slightly narrower front sweep would pull the offspring toward the better parent's performance.

methodClosed front sweep by less than a degree, trimmed plate length slightly, and thickened the plate marginally.

result5.888 — almost identical to the weaker parent (5.889) and well short of both the stronger parent (5.855) and the 5.8547 best-so-far, so the front-sweep/plate-length nudge failed to pull performance toward the better parent. This suggests untouched genes like arm waist or thickness are doing more of the work in the strong parent than front sweep or plate length. Next worth testing: cross 7b72828ca192 with a strong parent while holding its arm-waist and thickness genes fixed to test that directly.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.114	132.3	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.739	158.8	37.6°
crosswind	3.603	153.1	32.7°
gusty_light	3.476	147.7	31.8°
hot_thin	3.322	141.1	27.1°
storm	4.519	192.0	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.48
arm thickness	2.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.3°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.66
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 8c77829a4cac

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.895 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.4% better
scenario mean	3.633 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.525 Wh/km
frame mass	63.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 62 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the fitter d773d9589e16 (5.872) with the weaker 5b36b7ba31ae (5.965), betting the fitter parent's tighter rear sweep and arm width would dominate while picking up a different material mix fraction from the weaker parent.

methodClosed rear sweep by about a degree, lowered the composite material fraction, narrowed arm width slightly, and thickened the plate a hair.

result5.895 — worse than the fitter parent (5.872) and the 5.8547 best-so-far, though much better than the weak parent, suggesting the weak parent's genes dragged the offspring down more than the rear-sweep tightening could recover. All six scenarios rose roughly uniformly. Next worth testing: retry this rear-sweep and material tweak crossed with a second strong parent to isolate whether the sweep change itself helps.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.113	132.3	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.750	159.3	37.8°
crosswind	3.607	153.2	32.8°
gusty_light	3.479	147.8	32.0°
hot_thin	3.322	141.1	27.2°
storm	4.525	192.2	29.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.48
arm thickness	2.7 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.6°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.5°
plate thickness	×0.66
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 22aeadad143b

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.896 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.4% better
scenario mean	3.633 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.525 Wh/km
frame mass	64.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 62 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two similarly-performing parents (5.889 and 5.874), betting that the fitter parent's composite material blend combined with a slightly wider plate would compound their individual strengths.

methodWidened the plate a touch, increased the composite material mix fraction, and nearly doubled the battery wedge tilt versus the leaner parent.

resultCame back at 5.896, worse than both parents and well off the 5.8547 best-so-far. The wider plate plus steeper wedge combination appears to have added drag across every scenario rather than isolating a benefit. Next worth testing: vary the battery wedge alone, since stacking it with the plate widen may have masked whether the wedge change helps or hurts on its own.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.116	132.4	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.745	159.1	37.6°
crosswind	3.610	153.3	32.7°
gusty_light	3.480	147.8	31.9°
hot_thin	3.324	141.2	27.1°
storm	4.525	192.2	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.48
arm thickness	2.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.5°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate db6154a228b3

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.925 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.0% better
scenario mean	3.653 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.544 Wh/km
frame mass	63.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 62 via crossover

hypothesisParent 4f7f130683ab carried a notably steep battery wedge; the bet was that combining that tilt with the fitter d773d9589e16 parent's leaner arm and plate genes would preserve any balance benefit from the wedge while shedding the weaker parent's other costs.

methodPushed the battery wedge slightly steeper than either parent, opened the deck gap a touch, and tightened the arm waist marginally.

result5.925 — better than the steep-wedge parent (5.927) but clearly worse than the leaner d773d9589e16 parent (5.872) and the 5.8547 best-so-far. The steep battery wedge again looks like the drag, since even paired with better arm/plate genes it couldn't reach parity. Next worth testing: hold the elite genome fixed and sweep battery wedge from near-zero upward to find exactly where the penalty starts.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.138	133.3	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.764	159.9	37.7°
crosswind	3.632	154.3	32.8°
gusty_light	3.499	148.7	32.0°
hot_thin	3.343	142.0	27.2°
storm	4.544	193.0	29.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.47
arm thickness	2.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.4 mm
battery wedge	6.3°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate c9b7d3ef88f4

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.965 Wh/km
vs baseline	13.4% better
scenario mean	3.678 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.575 Wh/km
frame mass	64.5 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 62 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two mid-pack parents (5.963 and 5.876), betting the alternate pa12_cf material's weight/stiffness tradeoff would let a wider arm waist and thicker plate pay off where carbon-fiber plate hadn't been tried in that combination.

methodKept genes close to the parents but locked in the pa12_cf material along with a notably wider arm waist and thicker plate than the current elite line.

result5.965, worse than both parents and far off the 5.8547 best-so-far, with the cost spread evenly across all six scenarios — the heavier material plus wide waist and thick plate simply carries too much mass. This material has now underperformed across multiple crosses; next worth testing is pa12_cf paired with a leaner arm waist rather than continuing to test it against thick-plate genomes.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.148	133.8	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.800	161.4	38.0°
crosswind	3.664	155.7	33.1°
gusty_light	3.522	149.6	32.2°
hot_thin	3.356	142.6	27.3°
storm	4.575	194.4	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.54
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.5°
rear sweep	43.9°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.6 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.82
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate d57411b0f828

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	7.037 Wh/km
vs baseline	2.2% worse
scenario mean	4.336 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.403 Wh/km
frame mass	151.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 62 via immigrant

hypothesisA fresh immigrant probing the heavy-arm corner of the design space, betting that much thicker tubing and a steeper battery wedge might buy resilience in the harsher scenarios even at a mass penalty.

methodRandomly generated with arm thickness more than double the elite lineage's, a shorter deck gap, and a notably steeper battery wedge and plate thickness than the current champion line.

resultFitness 7.037, dramatically worse than the 5.8547 best-so-far across every scenario — confirming the extra arm mass costs far more energy than any stiffness benefit returns. Lesson: the population has moved well past needing this much structural margin, so future immigrants should be seeded closer to the elite thickness range. Worth testing next: an immigrant with the elite's thin-arm profile but a genuinely novel sweep or plate combination instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.702	157.3	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.496	191.0	39.3°
crosswind	4.327	183.8	34.1°
gusty_light	4.138	175.8	32.9°
hot_thin	3.948	167.7	27.7°
storm	5.403	229.5	32.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.02
arm width	×1.03
arm waist	×0.96
arm thickness	6.4 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.5°
rear sweep	35.7°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	29.0 mm
battery wedge	1.9°
plate thickness	×1.01
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 5de6915eac91

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pet_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	107.6 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 62 via immigrant

hypothesisAn immigrant probing a lighter, more angular corner of the design space — thin arms, aggressive sweep, wider plate — betting the pet_cf material's stiffness could carry a leaner arm cross-section.

methodRandomly generated with arm width narrow relative to its length, steep front sweep, a wider and thicker plate than the elite line, and pet_cf material.

resultInvalid — failed on arm tip deflection with pet_cf. The narrow width paired with the longer arm and pet_cf's lower stiffness than carbon-fiber plate couldn't keep the arm tip within deflection limits under load. Lesson: pet_cf needs a wider arm cross-section or a shorter arm to survive; next worth testing is this same genome with arm width raised toward the elite ratio, still using pet_cf, to find the material's real ceiling.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.87
arm width	×0.68
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.7 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	51.0°
rear sweep	44.6°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.22
deck gap	34.6 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×1.58
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 133860f4569a

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (petg)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	93.3 g
material	petg
born	generation 62 via immigrant

hypothesisAn immigrant testing petg, the softest available material, paired with a very steep battery wedge, betting that redistributed load from the wedge might let a longer, narrow-waisted arm still pass.

methodRandomly generated with a longer arm length, arm width and waist narrower than the elite line, a very steep battery wedge, and petg material.

resultInvalid — failed on arm tip deflection with petg. Petg's low stiffness, combined with the longer arm and narrow width/waist, exceeded deflection limits regardless of the battery wedge angle. Lesson: petg looks essentially unusable except at the shortest, widest arm geometries; next worth testing is petg pinned to the elite genome's arm length and width to see if it can pass at all.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.04
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.91
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	39.4°
rear sweep	47.1°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.19
deck gap	30.3 mm
battery wedge	14.1°
plate thickness	×1.13
material	petg

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate d773d9589e16new best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.872 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.7% better
scenario mean	3.618 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.507 Wh/km
frame mass	62.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 60 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents were already near the top of the pool (the current champion and its closest rival), so this cross bets that fine-tuning arm slenderness and plate thickness down from the champion's proven recipe can shave off a little more weight without giving up stiffness.

methodStarting from the champion's blend, arm width was nudged up a hair, the plate was thinned slightly, arm thickness was trimmed by a tenth of a millimeter, and the material mix shifted toward a slightly different carbon-fiber ratio.

resultNEW WINNER at 5.872 Wh/km, beating the incoming best-so-far of 5.889 and both parents. The small combined weight savings across arms and plate apparently paid off without tripping any deflection limits, helping storm and cold-headwind numbers most. Worth trying a slightly deeper plate-thickness cut from here to see if the margin holds before deflection becomes limiting.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.104	131.9	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.729	158.4	37.6°
crosswind	3.592	152.6	32.7°
gusty_light	3.466	147.2	31.9°
hot_thin	3.312	140.7	27.1°
storm	4.507	191.5	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.94
arm waist	×0.48
arm thickness	2.7 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.64
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 0c8b8ef5f4cd

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.874 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.7% better
scenario mean	3.619 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.508 Wh/km
frame mass	62.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 61 via crossover

hypothesisParent 939e58c18328 (5.889) had plateaued; the bet was that shaving more mass via a thinner arm waist and thinner plate could squeeze out further efficiency.

methodReduced arm waist and plate thickness, trimmed plate width fractionally, and eased rear sweep by half a degree versus the parent.

resultLanded at 5.874, an improvement over the 5.889 parent but just short of the pre-generation best-so-far of 5.8716. Storm remains the single biggest energy sink (4.51 Wh/km), suggesting the thinning helped everywhere a little but not enough to break through. Worth testing an even thinner arm waist while watching the deflection margin it's now approaching.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.102	131.8	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.734	158.6	37.7°
crosswind	3.595	152.7	32.7°
gusty_light	3.467	147.3	31.9°
hot_thin	3.310	140.6	27.2°
storm	4.508	191.5	29.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	43.1°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.61
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate e377f0f3cad7

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.876 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.7% better
scenario mean	3.621 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.509 Wh/km
frame mass	62.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 61 via crossover

hypothesisSelf-crossed the strongest parent (d773d9589e16, 5.872, right at the record), betting a tighter deck gap and slightly thicker plate would nudge it lower still.

methodReduced deck gap by about 0.6mm and increased plate thickness fractionally, otherwise unchanged from the parent.

resultLanded at 5.876, essentially flat versus the parent and now behind this generation's new best-so-far of 5.855 set by 7b72828ca192. The deck-gap/thickness trade was a wash. Next: apply the winning 2.6mm arm-thickness cut directly onto this lineage, since it hasn't tried that lever yet.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.109	132.1	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.730	158.5	37.6°
crosswind	3.595	152.7	32.7°
gusty_light	3.469	147.4	31.9°
hot_thin	3.316	140.9	27.1°
storm	4.509	191.6	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.94
arm waist	×0.48
arm thickness	2.7 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.4 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 939e58c18328new best when evaluated✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.889 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.5% better
scenario mean	3.629 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.520 Wh/km
frame mass	63.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 59 via designer

hypothesisWith both pa12_cf and pet_cf thin-arm bets failing this generation, the designer instead bet on solid cf_plate's higher stiffness-to-weight ratio to enable an aggressive combined mass cut across arms and plate.

methodArm width widened substantially, arm thickness cut to 2.8mm, waist tapered more aggressively, and plate thickness dropped to about two-thirds of the champion's, all rebuilt in cf_plate.

resultFitness came in at 5.889 — a clear NEW WINNER, beating the prior best-so-far of 5.964 by about 1.3%, with every scenario improving (storm down to 4.52 from 4.57). The stiffer cf_plate material evidently absorbed the aggressive thickness cuts without a structural penalty, delivering a genuine mass win rather than noise. Worth testing next: push plate thickness even lower in cf_plate and see how far arm thickness can drop below 2.8mm before deflection limits bite.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.113	132.2	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.740	158.9	37.6°
crosswind	3.604	153.1	32.7°
gusty_light	3.476	147.7	31.8°
hot_thin	3.321	141.1	27.1°
storm	4.520	192.0	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.48
arm thickness	2.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate afa6d0245b45

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.896 Wh/km
vs baseline	14.4% better
scenario mean	3.634 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.525 Wh/km
frame mass	64.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 61 via crossover

hypothesisCombined the two strongest parents in the population (5.872 and 5.889), hoping their shared traits plus a tighter deck gap would compound into a new leader.

methodArm thickness nudged up slightly, deck gap tightened by about half a millimeter, front sweep increased marginally, plate thinned a touch.

resultCame in at 5.896, worse than both parents - the small thickness increase and deck-gap tightening didn't pay off net. Suggests this genome region sits near a local optimum where such micro-adjustments cancel out or backfire. Next: isolate the deck-gap change alone, without the thickness bump, to see which direction is actually harmful.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.118	132.5	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.743	159.0	37.6°
crosswind	3.609	153.3	32.7°
gusty_light	3.481	147.9	31.9°
hot_thin	3.326	141.3	27.1°
storm	4.525	192.2	29.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.94
arm waist	×0.48
arm thickness	2.9 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.6 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.63
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 4f7f130683ab

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.927 Wh/km
vs baseline	13.9% better
scenario mean	3.653 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.547 Wh/km
frame mass	63.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 61 via crossover

hypothesisTwo mid-pack parents (5.926 and 5.965) were crossed hoping their partial strengths would compound into something better than either alone.

methodGenes came out nearly identical to the fitter parent - essentially no meaningful mutation, just a near-copy recombination.

resultScored 5.927, matching the better parent almost exactly with no real gain, and well off the leading edge. Blending two similar mediocre designs without introducing a genuine change just reproduces mediocrity. Next time, force a real mutation (like arm waist or thickness reduction) instead of a near-identical crossover.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.134	133.1	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.768	160.1	37.7°
crosswind	3.632	154.3	32.8°
gusty_light	3.499	148.6	32.0°
hot_thin	3.341	141.9	27.2°
storm	4.547	193.2	29.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.48
arm thickness	2.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	6.0°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 5868ef45b988

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.942 Wh/km
vs baseline	13.7% better
scenario mean	3.662 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.558 Wh/km
frame mass	64.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 61 via crossover

hypothesisPaired a mid-pack parent with the stronger 939e58c18328, betting a shallower rear sweep would cut drag in rear-quarter airflow.

methodReduced rear sweep by about a degree and increased plate length slightly.

resultScored 5.942, worse than both parents - the shallower rear sweep actively hurt, likely increasing frontal drag in crosswind and storm conditions. Confirms the ~43.5° rear sweep found by the champion lineage is a genuine optimum, not incidental. Next: hold rear sweep fixed and vary an orthogonal gene like deck gap instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.140	133.4	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.781	160.6	37.9°
crosswind	3.640	154.7	32.9°
gusty_light	3.507	149.0	32.1°
hot_thin	3.347	142.2	27.3°
storm	4.558	193.7	29.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.48
arm thickness	2.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.4°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	5.9°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 4b55fd030669

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.963 Wh/km
vs baseline	13.4% better
scenario mean	3.676 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.574 Wh/km
frame mass	64.5 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 60 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the runner-up lineage with a different mid-pack frame bet that their small differences might combine into a marginal edge over both.

methodThe offspring's genes are essentially unchanged from the fitter parent, with only negligible shifts.

resultFitness of 5.963 edged out both parents (5.964 and 5.987) by a hair but fell well short of the generation's new best-so-far of 5.872 from d773d9589e16. The gain is too small to be meaningful and reflects the same converged neighborhood rather than a real breakthrough. Next worth crossing this genome against the new 5.872 champion instead of other mid-pack frames.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.147	133.7	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.799	161.4	38.0°
crosswind	3.662	155.6	33.1°
gusty_light	3.520	149.6	32.2°
hot_thin	3.355	142.5	27.3°
storm	4.574	194.3	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.54
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.6°
rear sweep	43.9°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.7 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.82
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 998f02b54cdc

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.964 Wh/km
vs baseline	13.4% better
scenario mean	3.677 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.575 Wh/km
frame mass	64.6 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 61 via crossover

hypothesisBlended two mediocre pa12_cf-lineage parents, testing whether recombination alone, without a fresh mutation, could stumble onto a better combination.

methodGenes came out nearly identical to parent 5b36b7ba31ae, essentially a near-copy crossover with no meaningful change.

resultScored 5.964, matching the weaker parent and worse than the fitter one (5.926) - just reproducing known mediocrity. This pa12_cf branch continues to trail well behind the cf_plate/thin-arm lineage now leading at 5.855. Next: retire near-identical crossovers in favor of grafting the proven 2.6mm arm-thickness mutation onto this branch.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.148	133.7	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.799	161.4	38.0°
crosswind	3.662	155.6	33.1°
gusty_light	3.521	149.6	32.2°
hot_thin	3.356	142.6	27.3°
storm	4.575	194.3	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.54
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.4°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	38.7 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.82
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 5b36b7ba31ae

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.965 Wh/km
vs baseline	13.4% better
scenario mean	3.677 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.575 Wh/km
frame mass	64.6 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 60 via crossover

hypothesisA self-cross of the same mid-pack parent bet that reinforcing its own gene values through duplication might lock in a small, stable improvement rather than exploring new territory.

methodPlate width and the sweep angles were nudged by fractions of a percent/degree, essentially within the parent's own range.

resultFitness came back at 5.965, effectively identical to the parent's 5.964 and far from the 5.872 best-so-far. As expected from a near-duplicate cross, nothing meaningfully changed. Next worth abandoning self-crosses on this genome in favor of pairing it with a more distant, higher-performing partner.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.148	133.8	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.800	161.4	38.0°
crosswind	3.662	155.6	33.1°
gusty_light	3.521	149.6	32.2°
hot_thin	3.356	142.6	27.3°
storm	4.575	194.4	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.54
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.4°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	38.7 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.82
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 1f9ba8b4c8e5

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.972 Wh/km
vs baseline	13.3% better
scenario mean	3.682 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.580 Wh/km
frame mass	68.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 61 via crossover

hypothesisTried trading arm mass for stiffness margin, hoping a thicker arm would allow more aggressive thinning elsewhere without risking deflection, blending two mid-pack parents.

methodIncreased arm thickness from 2.8mm to 3.1mm, shortened plate length slightly, reduced battery wedge angle, and thickened the plate marginally.

resultCame in at 5.972, worse than the fitter parent (5.926) - the extra arm mass cost more than any stiffness benefit gained elsewhere. Confirms this design region is weight-sensitive enough that unforced thickness increases are a net loss. Only add arm mass when paired with a change that genuinely demands the extra margin.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.164	134.4	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.795	161.2	37.8°
crosswind	3.658	155.4	32.8°
gusty_light	3.525	149.8	32.0°
hot_thin	3.370	143.2	27.2°
storm	4.580	194.6	29.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.48
arm thickness	3.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	5.4°
plate thickness	×0.67
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate e43f6fd13371

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.973 Wh/km
vs baseline	13.3% better
scenario mean	3.681 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.582 Wh/km
frame mass	65.0 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 61 via crossover

hypothesisCrossed two equally-mediocre pa12_cf parents (both 5.965), betting that more front sweep would improve the airflow/drag balance for that material lineage.

methodIncreased front sweep by about 1.5 degrees and plate length slightly versus both parents.

resultScored 5.973, slightly worse than both parents - the added sweep and plate length cost more in drag/mass than they returned. The pa12_cf lineage remains stuck well behind the cf_plate branch's 5.855 leader. Next: try grafting the proven arm-thinning trick onto this material line instead of tuning sweep angles.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.148	133.7	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.809	161.8	38.1°
crosswind	3.667	155.8	33.1°
gusty_light	3.525	149.7	32.2°
hot_thin	3.357	142.6	27.3°
storm	4.582	194.7	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.54
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.9°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	38.7 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.82
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate db0c7f4100a9

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.943 Wh/km
vs baseline	0.8% worse
scenario mean	4.278 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.330 Wh/km
frame mass	144.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 61 via immigrant

hypothesisA pure random immigrant, injected purely for diversity rather than to compete, testing whether stockier baseline-like proportions might reveal an unexplored region of the design space.

methodFresh random genome: near-stock arm length and width, thick 6mm arms, shallow front/rear sweep angles, and a tight 30mm deck gap.

resultScored 6.943, far behind the leading pack - a useful negative control confirming the population's converged region (thin arms, ~0.8x length, ~43° sweep) is genuinely superior to baseline-like proportions. Next: try immigrants that keep the proven thin-arm-waist trick but randomize sweep and deck gap, rather than randomizing everything at once.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.655	155.3	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.429	188.2	39.3°
crosswind	4.269	181.4	34.1°
gusty_light	4.086	173.6	32.8°
hot_thin	3.898	165.6	27.6°
storm	5.330	226.4	32.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×1.00
arm waist	×1.01
arm thickness	6.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.4°
rear sweep	36.2°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	1.9°
plate thickness	×1.01
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate d545afbf4016

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pet_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	70.4 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 61 via crossover

hypothesisPaired the near-record parent d773d9589e16 (5.872) with a weaker one, betting a shift toward pet_cf material could unlock extra weight savings while the strong parent's traits carried the design.

methodShifted the material blend toward pet_cf, thinned arm thickness slightly, and trimmed rear sweep and arm width a touch.

resultInvalid - failed on arm tip deflection. The pet_cf material's lower stiffness couldn't tolerate the already-thin arm cross-section inherited from the parent. Lesson: any move toward pet_cf needs a compensating increase in arm thickness or width, not a further reduction.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.54
arm thickness	4.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.6°
rear sweep	42.9°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.7 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.83
material	pet_cf

parents

candidate 11a813e12658✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.926 Wh/km
vs baseline	13.9% better
scenario mean	3.653 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.547 Wh/km
frame mass	63.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 60 via designer

hypothesisA hand-designed candidate bet that steepening the battery wedge angle well beyond what evolution has tried could shift the center of mass in a way that cuts drag or improves stability enough to offset the added complexity.

methodBuilt on a gene profile very close to the reigning champion's arm and plate proportions, but with the battery mounting wedge angle raised sharply from the usual near-flat setting to a pronounced tilt.

resultFitness came in at 5.926, close to but not beating the incoming best-so-far of 5.889 (or the new 5.872 winner from this generation), and slightly worse across every scenario than the champion-like baseline it was built from. The steep battery wedge appears to add a small aerodynamic or trim penalty rather than a benefit, suggesting near-flat wedge angles remain preferable. Next worth testing this same slim-arm profile with the wedge angle dialed back down near zero to isolate whether the wedge itself is the drag.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.133	133.1	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.768	160.1	37.7°
crosswind	3.632	154.3	32.8°
gusty_light	3.499	148.6	32.0°
hot_thin	3.340	141.9	27.2°
storm	4.547	193.2	29.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.48
arm thickness	2.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	6.0°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 5cdac6ab7364new best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.964 Wh/km
vs baseline	13.4% better
scenario mean	3.677 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.574 Wh/km
frame mass	64.6 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 59 via pivot

hypothesisSame parent edfd1f91cfd1 (5.964) as the prior candidate, but this pivot barely touched the genome at all, essentially re-sampling the champion's own neighborhood to see if noise alone could nudge it lower.

methodGenes came back nearly identical to the parent, with no meaningful dimensional change.

resultFitness landed at 5.964, matching and registering as the new best-so-far. This shows the champion sits right at a local optimum — replaying its own genome almost verbatim reproduces the record rather than beating it outright. Worth testing: a real single-gene perturbation from this exact point (material fraction or deck gap alone) to find which axis still has slope.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.148	133.7	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.799	161.4	38.0°
crosswind	3.663	155.6	33.1°
gusty_light	3.521	149.6	32.2°
hot_thin	3.356	142.6	27.3°
storm	4.574	194.3	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.54
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.6°
rear sweep	43.9°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.7 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.82
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 7d59e35df109

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.965 Wh/km
vs baseline	13.4% better
scenario mean	3.677 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.575 Wh/km
frame mass	64.6 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 60 via crossover

hypothesisTwo closely-matched mid-pack parents were crossed on the chance that averaging their nearly identical builds might smooth out whichever one was carrying a slight weakness.

methodThe only real change was a fractional bump in front sweep angle; everything else stayed essentially the same as both parents.

resultLanded at 5.965, effectively a wash with both parents (5.964) and well off the new best-so-far of 5.872. This confirms the pool has converged tightly in this gene neighborhood and near-duplicate crosses aren't finding new gains. Next worth trying a bigger sweep-angle jump rather than a fractional nudge to actually explore this axis.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.148	133.7	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.800	161.4	38.0°
crosswind	3.663	155.6	33.1°
gusty_light	3.521	149.6	32.2°
hot_thin	3.356	142.6	27.3°
storm	4.575	194.4	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.54
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.8°
rear sweep	43.9°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.7 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.82
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate a6d43b5c7c76

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.972 Wh/km
vs baseline	13.3% better
scenario mean	3.681 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.582 Wh/km
frame mass	64.7 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 56 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents are the reigning champion 16463dd9e9f5 (5.972); this self-crossover bets that recombining the champion's own genes could replicate or slightly refine its performance.

methodGenes are essentially identical to the champion, with only a small front sweep increase (to 37.6°) and a tightened deck gap (38.1mm).

resultMatched the best-so-far exactly at 5.972 but wasn't flagged as a new winner — a tie, not an improvement. The champion's design is proving to be a stable attractor under small self-recombination, suggesting the search has converged near a local optimum; next worth trying a larger, deliberate perturbation such as a material swap or a waist/thickness combo rather than micro-tweaks.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.149	133.8	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.810	161.9	38.1°
crosswind	3.666	155.7	33.2°
gusty_light	3.524	149.7	32.2°
hot_thin	3.357	142.6	27.4°
storm	4.582	194.6	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.6°
rear sweep	42.4°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	38.1 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate e577ecae1635

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.983 Wh/km
vs baseline	13.1% better
scenario mean	3.688 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.589 Wh/km
frame mass	65.8 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 59 via pivot

hypothesisParent edfd1f91cfd1 (5.964, effectively the reigning champion) was already lean; the bet was that shifting mass from plate to arm — thicker arm, thinner plate — could be a wash or a slight win.

methodArm thickness bumped up slightly, plate thickness pulled down, front sweep nudged up under a degree, and the material blend fraction shifted marginally.

resultFitness came in at 5.983, a touch worse than the 5.964 parent, so no new winner, though still one of the tightest results in the generation. The thicker-arm/thinner-plate swap didn't quite pay for itself, with every scenario ticking up slightly. Worth testing: hold plate thickness fixed and vary only the material fraction to isolate that axis.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.155	134.0	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.815	162.1	38.1°
crosswind	3.674	156.1	33.1°
gusty_light	3.531	150.0	32.2°
hot_thin	3.364	142.9	27.4°
storm	4.589	195.0	29.7°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.53
arm thickness	4.4 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.9°
rear sweep	43.9°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.7 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate ca88f36b4e23

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.988 Wh/km
vs baseline	13.0% better
scenario mean	3.691 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.594 Wh/km
frame mass	65.4 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 60 via crossover

hypothesisTwo mid-pack parents with very similar builds were crossed on the chance that blending their small differences might land on a slightly better compromise.

methodThe offspring's genes are nearly identical to both parents, with only marginal shifts in arm waist and plate proportions.

resultFitness matched one parent almost exactly at 5.988, no improvement over either parent and far from the 5.872 best-so-far. This is another sign the pool has converged and these near-duplicate pairings mostly just replicate existing fitness rather than searching new ground. Next worth introducing a larger mutation step into this neighborhood rather than another near-identical cross.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.155	134.0	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.818	162.2	38.1°
crosswind	3.681	156.4	33.2°
gusty_light	3.534	150.1	32.2°
hot_thin	3.364	142.9	27.4°
storm	4.594	195.2	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.7°
rear sweep	42.2°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	38.1 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate dc6fdce0b9e2

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.996 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.9% better
scenario mean	3.696 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.600 Wh/km
frame mass	65.2 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 60 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing a mid-pack frame with the champion bet that pulling deck gap and sweep angle toward the champion's values would drag the weaker parent's fitness down toward the champion's level.

methodFront sweep angle was pulled in, deck gap tightened, and arm width and length both nudged slightly narrower.

resultFitness landed at 5.996, worse than both parents (5.972 and 5.889) and well off the 5.872 best-so-far. The combined narrowing of arm width and length together seems to have cost more stiffness than the tighter deck gap and sweep saved in efficiency. Next worth testing the deck-gap and sweep changes alone, without touching arm width/length, to isolate the beneficial piece.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.158	134.2	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.829	162.7	38.3°
crosswind	3.683	156.5	33.2°
gusty_light	3.538	150.3	32.3°
hot_thin	3.367	143.0	27.4°
storm	4.600	195.4	29.7°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.54
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.8°
rear sweep	42.4°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	37.2 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.81
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 1562b58bb92a

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.011 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.7% better
scenario mean	3.704 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.613 Wh/km
frame mass	66.2 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 60 via mutation

hypothesisThe parent sat mid-pack, so this mutation bets that thickening the arms slightly while easing rear sweep could trade a touch of weight for more stiffness margin.

methodArm thickness increased by a tenth of a millimeter and rear sweep angle was pulled in slightly.

resultFitness worsened to 6.011 from the parent's 5.996, moving further from the 5.872 best-so-far. The extra arm mass wasn't repaid by any efficiency gain, suggesting this frame was already thick enough and the added weight just cost energy across every scenario. Next worth testing the opposite move -- thinning arms slightly from this same parent instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.163	134.4	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.844	163.3	38.4°
crosswind	3.690	156.8	33.3°
gusty_light	3.545	150.6	32.3°
hot_thin	3.372	143.3	27.4°
storm	4.613	196.0	30.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.82
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.6°
rear sweep	42.2°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	37.8 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate ac35c1dcb265✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.019 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.6% better
scenario mean	3.710 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.617 Wh/km
frame mass	74.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 60 via designer

hypothesisA hand-designed candidate bet that aggressively slimming the arms to their narrowest width yet could unlock a step-change weight reduction beyond what gradual mutation has found.

methodArm width was cut sharply relative to recent champions, paired with a narrower arm waist and a moderately thick arm cross-section, while sweep and plate dimensions stayed close to the proven baseline.

resultFitness landed at 6.019, clearly worse than the standing best-so-far of 5.889 (soon 5.872) and worse than most crossover candidates this generation. The arms were likely too slender for their thickness to keep deflection in check without other geometry compensating, eating any weight-saving gain in extra required stiffness elsewhere. Next worth pairing this narrow arm width with the thinner plate/arm-thickness combination that worked for d773d9589e16 rather than testing it in isolation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.184	135.2	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.821	162.3	37.6°
crosswind	3.690	156.7	32.7°
gusty_light	3.553	151.0	31.9°
hot_thin	3.395	144.2	27.2°
storm	4.617	196.2	29.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.65
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	3.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate e0d41ac327fc

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.924 Wh/km
vs baseline	0.6% worse
scenario mean	4.267 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.316 Wh/km
frame mass	143.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 60 via immigrant

hypothesisA fresh random immigrant was injected to test whether an entirely different, heavier-built region of the design space might hide an undiscovered optimum the crossover lineage hasn't explored.

methodThis from-scratch genome carries notably thick arms, a tight deck gap, and a pronounced battery wedge angle, built in cf_plate.

resultCame in at 6.924, far behind the 5.872 best-so-far and every crossover-derived candidate this generation. The heavy arms and steep battery wedge added mass and drag that the evolved lineage has already learned to shed, confirming the population's converged region remains the stronger bet. Next, immigrants might be more useful seeded closer to the champion's proportions rather than fully random, to probe the edges of the good region instead of unrelated territory.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.644	154.8	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.418	187.7	39.3°
crosswind	4.260	181.0	34.1°
gusty_light	4.075	173.1	32.8°
hot_thin	3.887	165.1	27.6°
storm	5.316	225.8	32.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.01
arm width	×0.95
arm waist	×1.02
arm thickness	6.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.2°
rear sweep	36.2°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	29.9 mm
battery wedge	2.1°
plate thickness	×1.02
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate c6d691e56f31

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pet_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	70.8 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 60 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the runner-up with the reigning champion bet that shifting the material blend further and thinning the plate could push into new low-fitness territory.

methodThe material mix moved further along its blend spectrum into a pet_cf composition, plate thickness was trimmed, and arm width nudged up slightly.

resultInvalid -- arm tip deflection failure under the pet_cf material. This shows pet_cf's stiffness can't support this arm geometry at this thickness the way cf_plate or pa12_cf can, so material choice and arm slenderness aren't freely interchangeable. Next worth retrying this exact geometry with cf_plate or pa12_cf instead of pet_cf to see if the plate/width changes alone were sound.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.54
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.6°
rear sweep	43.9°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.7 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pet_cf

parents

candidate d32580f8eac6

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	64.7 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 60 via crossover

hypothesisCombining two mid-pack parents bet that shrinking the plate footprint while thickening it and relaxing rear sweep would trim weight without sacrificing structural margin.

methodPlate length was shortened, plate thickness increased, rear sweep angle reduced, and plate width nudged up slightly.

resultInvalid -- arm tip deflection failure under pa12_cf. The shorter, differently-proportioned plate combined with the sweep change apparently redistributed load onto the arms enough to exceed the deflection limit even in a normally-capable material. Next worth keeping the sweep change but reverting plate length back toward the parent's value to isolate which change caused the failure.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.81
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.6°
rear sweep	41.6°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	37.6 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate edfd1f91cfd1new best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.964 Wh/km
vs baseline	13.4% better
scenario mean	3.677 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.575 Wh/km
frame mass	64.5 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 58 via pivot

hypothesisParent 3f4703e7772e was solid but not class-leading; this pivot bets that a small shift in material blend plus a touch more rear sweep and a slightly slimmer arm waist could shave off a bit more mass/drag without tripping the arm deflection limit.

methodNudged the material composition slightly richer, opened rear sweep by about a degree, pulled the arm waist in a hair, and trimmed plate length marginally.

resultNEW WINNER — 5.964 Wh/km, edging out the prior best-so-far of 5.972 and beating its own parent's 5.98. The gain came from small improvements spread across nearly every scenario, with storm still the heaviest single contributor at 4.57. Worth testing next: push the material-blend and rear-sweep combination further in the same direction to see if the gain compounds or plateaus.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.147	133.7	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.800	161.4	38.0°
crosswind	3.662	155.6	33.1°
gusty_light	3.521	149.6	32.2°
hot_thin	3.355	142.5	27.3°
storm	4.575	194.3	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.54
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.6°
rear sweep	43.9°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.7 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.82
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 16463dd9e9f5new best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.972 Wh/km
vs baseline	13.3% better
scenario mean	3.681 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.582 Wh/km
frame mass	64.7 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 55 via pivot

hypothesisParent 6c89b6db1b4e was already sitting right at the plateau ceiling (5.986) while the diversity parent 58571c6a9bc4 lagged badly (7.477); the bet was that a tighter deck gap and slightly stiffer material could still shave margin off a genome that looked fully converged.

methodDeck gap pulled in about a millimeter, composite material fill bumped up (more carbon-fiber stiffness), plate lengthened a touch, and front sweep opened about 0.3°.

resultNew winner -- 5.972 Wh/km, edging out the prior best-so-far (5.980) and both parents. The tighter deck gap likely trimmed a sliver of mass/drag without pushing arm stress past margin; storm (4.58) remained the costliest scenario as usual. Worth testing next: push the deck gap even tighter to see if the gain continues or the plateau reasserts.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.149	133.8	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.810	161.9	38.1°
crosswind	3.666	155.7	33.2°
gusty_light	3.524	149.7	32.2°
hot_thin	3.357	142.6	27.4°
storm	4.582	194.6	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.6°
rear sweep	42.4°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	38.1 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 0da13b61bd28

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.987 Wh/km
vs baseline	13.1% better
scenario mean	3.690 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.594 Wh/km
frame mass	65.5 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 59 via pivot

hypothesisParent 3c1628023f95 (5.987) was stable but middling; this pivot made only a token adjustment to sweep and plate thickness to probe whether any slope remained in the local landscape.

methodRear sweep dropped a fraction of a degree and plate thickness stayed essentially unchanged.

resultFitness came back at 5.987, identical to the parent, so no new winner — a dead-flat result. This confirms this corner of the design space is nearly a local plateau for small sweep/thickness tweaks. Worth testing a much larger step (several degrees of sweep) to see if the flatness is real or just under-sampled.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.152	133.9	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.820	162.3	38.0°
crosswind	3.678	156.2	33.1°
gusty_light	3.533	150.1	32.2°
hot_thin	3.362	142.8	27.3°
storm	4.594	195.2	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.4°
rear sweep	42.2°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.1 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.83
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 873f4f11385d

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.988 Wh/km
vs baseline	13.1% better
scenario mean	3.691 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.594 Wh/km
frame mass	65.4 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 58 via crossover

hypothesisParent 5644cd5d9659 was near the top of the pack; crossing it with itself bets that a slight widening of the arm waist and small sweep/length tweaks might find a nearby better optimum through recombination noise.

methodWidened the arm waist slightly, nudged plate width and arm length up marginally, and eased rear sweep down a touch.

resultLanded at 5.988 Wh/km, slightly worse than its parent's 5.976 and well short of the best-so-far. The self-crossover mostly added noise without a clear directional improvement, suggesting this gene region sits near a local optimum. Worth testing next: mutate deck gap or plate thickness instead, since waist/sweep tweaks here yielded no gain.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.155	134.0	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.819	162.2	38.1°
crosswind	3.679	156.3	33.2°
gusty_light	3.533	150.1	32.2°
hot_thin	3.364	142.9	27.4°
storm	4.594	195.2	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.7°
rear sweep	42.2°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	38.1 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 57f8cd5fe848

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.996 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.9% better
scenario mean	3.695 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.601 Wh/km
frame mass	65.0 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 59 via crossover

hypothesisTwo near-twin parents (16463dd9e9f5 and a6d43b5c7c76, both 5.972) sitting close together were crossed to see if recombining their small differences could find a slightly better blend.

methodArm length lengthened a touch, deck gap tightened slightly, and battery wedge trimmed a fraction of a degree.

resultFitness came back at 5.996, worse than both 5.972 parents, so no new winner. Crossing two nearly-identical parents mostly resampled noise rather than combining genuinely complementary traits. Worth testing: cross two parents that differ more substantially to get real recombination signal.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.156	134.1	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.834	162.9	38.3°
crosswind	3.679	156.3	33.2°
gusty_light	3.536	150.2	32.3°
hot_thin	3.365	142.9	27.4°
storm	4.601	195.5	30.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.81
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.6°
rear sweep	42.4°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	37.8 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate fa6fe8ea3e9e

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.020 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.6% better
scenario mean	3.711 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.618 Wh/km
frame mass	66.6 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 59 via pivot

hypothesisParent 873f4f11385d (5.988) hadn't found a good sweep balance; the bet was that a more asymmetric front/rear sweep split, paired with a lighter material fraction and a shorter plate, could cut drag.

methodMaterial fraction pulled down substantially, rear sweep pushed up nearly 3 degrees, front sweep pulled down about 2 degrees, and plate length shortened slightly.

resultFitness worsened to 6.02 versus the 5.988 parent, so no new winner. The wider sweep asymmetry likely cost stability in the windier scenarios (crosswind and storm both rose), outweighing any drag savings. Worth testing: revert the sweep split and isolate the material-fraction change alone.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.173	134.8	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.846	163.4	38.3°
crosswind	3.697	157.1	33.3°
gusty_light	3.552	150.9	32.3°
hot_thin	3.381	143.7	27.4°
storm	4.618	196.2	30.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.81
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.7°
rear sweep	44.9°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	38.2 mm
battery wedge	0.7°
plate thickness	×0.86
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate a7c3faf64e8d

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.047 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.2% better
scenario mean	3.726 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.641 Wh/km
frame mass	69.0 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 59 via pivot

hypothesisParent a6d43b5c7c76 sat at 5.972 with the population plateaued; the bet was that thickening the plate and arm waist would buy extra stiffness margin cheaply enough to pay for itself in mass.

methodPlate thickness and arm waist were both increased noticeably, rear sweep nudged up about a degree, plate length left almost unchanged.

resultFitness landed at 6.047, worse than the 5.972 parent and well off the 5.964 best-so-far, so no new winner. The extra plate/waist mass raised power draw in every scenario (storm rose to 4.64) without buying enough robustness to offset it. Worth testing: thicken only the waist while holding plate thickness at the parent's value to isolate which change hurt more.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.181	135.2	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.866	164.2	38.3°
crosswind	3.712	157.7	33.3°
gusty_light	3.566	151.5	32.3°
hot_thin	3.393	144.1	27.4°
storm	4.641	197.2	29.9°

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.62
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.4°
rear sweep	43.4°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	38.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.92
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 511efe20a29b

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.072 Wh/km
vs baseline	11.8% better
scenario mean	3.743 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.658 Wh/km
frame mass	71.8 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 59 via mutation

hypothesisParent 37e5b6c91c06 (6.01) was underperforming; the bet was that a beefier arm cross-section would buy stiffness/robustness headroom, particularly useful for the storm scenario.

methodArm thickness increased notably, arm width thinned slightly to compensate, deck gap widened a touch, and arm waist nudged up.

resultFitness worsened to 6.072 versus the 6.01 parent, so no new winner. The extra arm mass wasn't offset by the width reduction, so weight costs outweighed any storm-robustness gain (storm still rose to 4.66). Worth testing: keep the width reduction but leave arm thickness at the parent's value to isolate which change drove the regression.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.198	135.9	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.877	164.7	38.3°
crosswind	3.732	158.6	33.3°
gusty_light	3.583	152.2	32.3°
hot_thin	3.410	144.9	27.4°
storm	4.658	197.9	29.9°

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.9 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.6°
rear sweep	42.4°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	38.3 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate b781e855df2a

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.486 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.8% better
scenario mean	4.000 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.972 Wh/km
frame mass	106.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 59 via immigrant

hypothesisWith the population converging tightly around 5.96-6.0, this immigrant was injected purely for diversity, testing a structurally different region far from the champion cluster: longer arms, a big battery wedge, and a solid CF plate.

methodFresh random genome with longer, narrower-waisted arms, a thicker arm section, a much larger plate, and a steep 12.2-degree battery wedge, all built in solid cf_plate.

resultFitness came in at 6.486, the worst result of the generation and far from the 5.964 best-so-far, so no new winner. The oversized plate and steep battery wedge likely added both mass and drag across every scenario, especially storm (4.97). Worth testing: a milder wedge (under 5 degrees) on this same arm geometry to isolate whether the arms or the wedge did the damage.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.425	145.5	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.144	176.0	38.6°
crosswind	3.992	169.6	33.9°
gusty_light	3.822	162.4	32.6°
hot_thin	3.644	154.8	27.6°
storm	4.972	211.2	31.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.93
arm width	×0.63
arm waist	×0.50
arm thickness	5.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.3°
rear sweep	41.7°
plate length	×1.16
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	43.7 mm
battery wedge	12.2°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 65871d99541e

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pet_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	72.0 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 59 via pivot

hypothesisParent c20b08fce302 (5.973) was solid but heavier than the champion; the bet was that switching toward pet_cf material while thickening the plate and thinning the arm could shave weight without losing stiffness.

methodMaterial fraction shifted toward pet_cf, plate thickness increased, arm thickness reduced slightly, and front sweep nudged up.

resultInvalid — killed by arm tip deflection under the pet_cf material model. Thinning the arm at the same time as switching to the more flexible pet_cf blend removed too much stiffness margin at once. Lesson: pet_cf tolerates less arm-thickness reduction than pa12_cf; next test should hold arm thickness fixed when trying a pet_cf swap.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	38.1°
rear sweep	42.5°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	37.9 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.89
material	pet_cf

parents

candidate e584eb50dfe2✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	60.8 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 59 via designer

hypothesisThe Claude-designer proposed a mass-saving bet on the champion's neighborhood: keep the known-good sweep and waist geometry but push arm thickness down hard while widening the arm to compensate for lost stiffness.

methodStarted from champion-like dimensions but widened the arm substantially and thinned arm thickness to 3.6mm, built in pa12_cf.

resultInvalid — killed by arm tip deflection in pa12_cf. Width alone couldn't substitute for the lost thickness margin at this load case. Teaches that arm thickness below roughly 4mm isn't survivable in pa12_cf at this geometry, even with a wider profile; worth testing 4.0mm as a floor with the same wide-arm idea.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.54
arm thickness	3.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.6°
rear sweep	43.9°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.7 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.82
material	pa12_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate acb487769a3a✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pet_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	71.1 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 59 via designer

hypothesisThe designer tried a more conservative variant on the same champion-like geometry: keep arm width and thickness at normal, proven values, and test only whether switching to pet_cf material could shed weight.

methodGenes matched the champion's arm and plate dimensions closely, with only the material swapped to pet_cf.

resultInvalid — killed by arm tip deflection in pet_cf, even at normal arm thickness. This confirms pet_cf is structurally weaker than pa12_cf at these exact dimensions and can't be dropped in as a straight material swap. Worth testing: the same swap with arm thickness raised above 4.2mm to find pet_cf's viable thickness floor.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.54
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.6°
rear sweep	43.9°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.7 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.82
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate c20b08fce302

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.973 Wh/km
vs baseline	13.3% better
scenario mean	3.682 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.582 Wh/km
frame mass	64.7 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 57 via pivot

hypothesisA near-clone probe of the plateau leader, testing whether tiny rounding-level nudges to sweep angles and deck gap could squeeze past the 5.972 wall.

methodSweep angles and deck gap shifted by only a few tenths of a degree/millimeter from the parent; every other gene unchanged.

resultLanded at 5.973, matching the parent almost exactly and just missing the 5.972 best-so-far. Confirms this is a tight local optimum where micro-jitter yields no gain. Worth testing: a larger single-gene perturbation (e.g. plate thickness) instead of multi-gene micro-nudges.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.151	133.9	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.808	161.8	38.1°
crosswind	3.667	155.8	33.2°
gusty_light	3.525	149.7	32.2°
hot_thin	3.359	142.7	27.3°
storm	4.582	194.6	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.7°
rear sweep	42.4°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	38.1 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 3f4703e7772enew best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.980 Wh/km
vs baseline	13.2% better
scenario mean	3.686 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.588 Wh/km
frame mass	64.9 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 54 via pivot

hypothesisParent 7cb5e0fb0f54 (5.992) was already competitive; this pivot bets that trimming plate dimensions and front sweep slightly can shave more mass without sacrificing stiffness.

methodReduced front sweep from 36.3° to 35.5°, shrank plate length to ×0.96 and plate width back to ×1.00, and narrowed arm width slightly to ×0.77.

resultFitness hit 5.980 Wh/km, beating both the fitter parent (5.992) and the earlier best-so-far of 5.985 — a NEW WINNER, the best result of the generation. The combination of slimmer plates and a shallower front sweep appears to trim mass/drag together without tripping the deflection constraint, unlike the longer-arm attempts. Next idea: continue shrinking plate length/width incrementally from this point to find where the deflection or stiffness constraint finally bites.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.150	133.8	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.814	162.0	38.1°
crosswind	3.673	156.0	33.1°
gusty_light	3.529	149.9	32.2°
hot_thin	3.360	142.7	27.4°
storm	4.588	194.9	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.5°
rear sweep	42.7°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.9 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.81
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 37aa22699f66

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.982 Wh/km
vs baseline	13.1% better
scenario mean	3.687 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.590 Wh/km
frame mass	64.9 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 57 via crossover

hypothesisCrosses two mid-plateau performers (5.98 and 5.987) to see if blending their arm-waist and deck-gap values lands on something better than either parent alone.

methodNudged arm waist multiplier from ×0.56 to ×0.57 and tightened deck gap slightly from 38.9mm to 38.8mm.

resultLanded at 5.982, splitting the difference between its two parents but still short of the 5.972 best-so-far. A clean blend with no real improvement, suggesting these two parents aren't complementary enough to escape the plateau. Next: cross one of these with the actual champion (16463dd9e9f5) rather than with another near-plateau sibling.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.152	133.9	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.817	162.1	38.1°
crosswind	3.674	156.1	33.1°
gusty_light	3.530	150.0	32.2°
hot_thin	3.361	142.8	27.3°
storm	4.590	195.0	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.5°
rear sweep	42.7°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.8 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.81
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 3c1628023f95

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.987 Wh/km
vs baseline	13.1% better
scenario mean	3.690 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.595 Wh/km
frame mass	65.6 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 56 via pivot

hypothesisParent fb32f197ac4c (5.997) trailed the champion; this pivot tests whether trimming plate length and nudging arm waist and rear sweep can shave off the remaining gap.

methodPlate length reduced slightly (×0.98→×0.97), arm waist widened marginally (×0.56→×0.57), rear sweep increased slightly (42.1°→42.4°), arm thickness essentially unchanged.

resultImproved to 5.987 from the parent's 5.997, a small step forward, but still behind the 5.972 best-so-far — not a new winner. The trimmed plate and slightly reinforced waist likely gave a modest efficiency edge; next worth pairing this waist/rear-sweep tweak with the champion's tighter deck gap.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.150	133.8	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.822	162.4	38.1°
crosswind	3.677	156.2	33.1°
gusty_light	3.533	150.1	32.2°
hot_thin	3.361	142.8	27.4°
storm	4.595	195.2	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.4°
rear sweep	42.4°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.1 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.83
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate f8f95071414b

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.999 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.9% better
scenario mean	3.697 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.604 Wh/km
frame mass	66.1 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 58 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing a lagging parent (dace2ad0b81d) with one near the front of the pack (16463dd9e9f5) tests whether blending their genes could inherit the stronger parent's efficiency.

methodTook essentially the weaker parent's full gene set and only lightly adjusted front sweep by about 0.2 degrees.

resultCame in at 5.999 Wh/km — better than the weak parent's 6.009 but worse than the strong parent's 5.972, so the crossover diluted rather than combined the good traits. This suggests the strong parent's advantage lives in genes beyond front sweep that weren't actually inherited here. Worth testing next: try a crossover that pulls arm waist or plate thickness from the strong parent instead of just sweep.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.159	134.2	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.831	162.7	38.3°
crosswind	3.684	156.5	33.2°
gusty_light	3.539	150.4	32.3°
hot_thin	3.369	143.1	27.4°
storm	4.604	195.6	29.7°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.64
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	38.6°
rear sweep	43.2°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.1 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.81
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 37e5b6c91c06

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.010 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.7% better
scenario mean	3.704 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.611 Wh/km
frame mass	67.5 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 58 via crossover

hypothesisTwo near-tied top performers (a6d43b5c7c76 and c20b08fce302, both around 5.97) were crossed to see if combining their plate and arm thickness traits could push past the plateau both were stuck at.

methodIncreased plate thickness and bumped arm thickness up slightly relative to both parents.

resultFitness rose to 6.01, worse than either parent, with scenario numbers creeping up uniformly across all six weather conditions. This indicates the added thickness added mass without enough structural payoff to justify it. Worth testing next: thicken only the arms while holding plate thickness at the lighter parent's value, to isolate which change hurt more.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.165	134.5	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.836	163.0	38.1°
crosswind	3.691	156.8	33.2°
gusty_light	3.546	150.6	32.2°
hot_thin	3.376	143.4	27.4°
storm	4.611	195.9	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.4 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.6°
rear sweep	42.4°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate d5b8430e6524✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.017 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.6% better
scenario mean	3.709 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.616 Wh/km
frame mass	69.7 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 57 via designer

hypothesisA designer bet that a thinner waist than the champion's could be paired with extra wall thickness to stay legal while cutting more mass at the narrowest cross-section.

methodThinned arm waist multiplier from the champion's ×0.56 to ×0.42 while thickening the arm wall from 4.2mm to 5.0mm to compensate; everything else matches the champion.

resultValid at 6.017 but worse than the 5.972 best-so-far -- the extra thickness needed to survive the thinner waist outweighed the mass saved from waisting, a net loss. It does prove a stiffness-preserving path to a thinner waist exists, unlike the failed ×0.46/4.0mm attempt (823853d4db89). Next: try an intermediate waist (~×0.49) with thickness around 4.4-4.5mm to find a lighter passing combination.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.168	134.6	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.841	163.2	38.1°
crosswind	3.700	157.2	33.2°
gusty_light	3.551	150.9	32.2°
hot_thin	3.379	143.5	27.4°
storm	4.616	196.1	29.7°

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.42
arm thickness	5.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.6°
rear sweep	42.4°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	38.1 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 53982ac0bb5d

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.891 Wh/km
vs baseline	0.1% worse
scenario mean	4.246 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.290 Wh/km
frame mass	140.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 58 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing a weak immigrant-lineage parent (ad79444f76c2, 6.891) with a stronger pa12_cf parent (3c1628023f95, 5.987) tests whether the cf_plate design could pick up efficiency from the better lineage.

methodThe crossover produced genes described as near-identical to the weaker parent, effectively keeping the cf_plate material and thick-arm geometry intact with no meaningful blending.

resultFitness matched the weak parent almost exactly at 6.891, confirming no useful gene transfer took place. This shows the crossover operator can sometimes fail to actually blend distant genomes, wasting an evaluation. Worth testing next: force a larger mixing ratio when parent fitnesses diverge this much, so weak lineages actually inherit something from the strong one.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.628	154.1	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.393	186.6	39.2°
crosswind	4.238	180.0	34.0°
gusty_light	4.056	172.3	32.8°
hot_thin	3.870	164.4	27.6°
storm	5.290	224.7	32.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.97
arm width	×1.01
arm waist	×1.04
arm thickness	5.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.2°
rear sweep	35.8°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	29.1 mm
battery wedge	1.8°
plate thickness	×1.05
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 49a0fe9fc938

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.903 Wh/km
vs baseline	0.2% worse
scenario mean	4.253 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.299 Wh/km
frame mass	141.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 58 via immigrant

hypothesisWith the population converging tightly around pa12_cf designs near 6.0, an immigrant explores a structurally different regime (thicker arms, cf_plate material, tight deck gap) to check whether an unrelated design basin might beat the incumbent lineage.

methodFresh random genome: near-stock arm proportions but much thicker arms (5.9mm), a wedged battery mount, a tight deck gap, and cf_plate instead of pa12_cf.

resultValid but well off the pace at 6.903 Wh/km, far behind the best-so-far of 5.972, with storm again the worst scenario at 5.3. This confirms the cf_plate/thick-arm regime is a weaker basin than the current pa12_cf lineage. Worth testing next: try an immigrant with pa12_cf material but these same thicker-arm proportions, to isolate whether material or geometry is dragging performance down.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.633	154.3	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.402	187.0	39.3°
crosswind	4.247	180.4	34.1°
gusty_light	4.063	172.6	32.8°
hot_thin	3.875	164.6	27.6°
storm	5.299	225.1	32.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×0.98
arm waist	×0.99
arm thickness	5.9 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.3°
rear sweep	36.2°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.3 mm
battery wedge	1.9°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 20cc5c47d345

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	65.5 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 58 via pivot

hypothesisParent 4063089700ab was underperforming slightly; the bet was that slimming the arms and front sweep while thickening the plate could recover efficiency by shifting stiffness duty from arms to plate.

methodReduced front sweep angle, narrowed arm width noticeably, thickened the plate, and nudged plate width down slightly.

resultInvalid — failed arm tip deflection under pa12_cf. Narrowing the arms that much removed too much bending stiffness for this material, even with a stiffer plate to compensate. Lesson: arm-width cuts need to be paired with more waist or wall thickness on pa12_cf, since the plate can't help resist arm-tip bending. Worth testing next: repeat the plate-thickening idea but hold arm width fixed.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.71
arm waist	×0.59
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.3°
rear sweep	42.9°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	37.4 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.88
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 53432e0d1d7d

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	65.8 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 58 via pivot

hypothesisParent dace2ad0b81d was lagging the pack; this pivot bets that lengthening the arms and easing both sweep angles toward a more symmetric front/rear split would improve aerodynamic balance.

methodLengthened the arms, pulled front sweep back, pulled rear sweep in to nearly match front, and restored full plate length.

resultInvalid — failed arm tip deflection under pa12_cf. Longer arms increase the bending moment at the tip, and nothing here added stiffness to offset it. Lesson: arm-length increases are risky on this material unless thickness or waist grows in tandem. Worth testing next: keep the sweep rebalancing but leave arm length unchanged.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.85
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.63
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.4°
rear sweep	42.4°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.3 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate e09e735ba529✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	66.7 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 58 via designer

hypothesisWith the design plateauing near 5.97-6.0, the designer bet on an aggressive weight-shaving move: thin the arms substantially while over-building the plate to carry more of the structural load.

methodCut arm thickness sharply toward 3.5mm while boosting plate thickness to 1.15x, keeping other dimensions close to the strong pa12_cf baseline.

resultInvalid — failed arm tip deflection under pa12_cf. The arm thinning went too far, and plate stiffening doesn't help since the plate isn't in the arm-tip bending load path. Lesson: arm thickness has a hard floor near 4mm for pa12_cf at these arm lengths regardless of plate reinforcement. Worth testing next: a more conservative arm-thickness cut (toward 3.8-3.9mm) paired with the plate thickening.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	3.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.6°
rear sweep	42.4°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×1.15
material	pa12_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 5644cd5d9659

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.976 Wh/km
vs baseline	13.2% better
scenario mean	3.683 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.585 Wh/km
frame mass	64.9 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 57 via pivot

hypothesisParent 9a2c8f15852b was a slightly heavier variant off the plateau; this pivot bets that shaving the plate footprint marginally could close the gap toward the champion.

methodTrimmed plate length from ×0.98 to ×0.97, leaving plate width and the rest of the genome effectively unchanged.

resultImproved to 5.976 from the parent's 5.982, a real gain but still short of the 5.972 best-so-far. Shows plate footprint is a shallow but real lever near the optimum. Next: pair this plate trim with the champion's arm-waist/sweep combination to see if the gains stack.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.148	133.8	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.812	162.0	38.1°
crosswind	3.670	155.9	33.2°
gusty_light	3.526	149.8	32.2°
hot_thin	3.357	142.6	27.4°
storm	4.585	194.8	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.8°
rear sweep	42.4°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 4063089700ab

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.987 Wh/km
vs baseline	13.1% better
scenario mean	3.691 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.594 Wh/km
frame mass	64.8 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 57 via crossover

hypothesisSelf-crossover of the reigning champion (16463dd9e9f5, fitness 5.972), betting that a steeper front sweep alone could shave more off its already near-optimal drag profile.

methodIncreased front sweep from 37.6° to 38.2°, with plate width essentially unchanged.

resultFitness worsened to 5.987 versus the champion's 5.972 -- not a new winner. The steeper sweep evidently added drag without offsetting benefit, showing the champion's sweep angle was already near its local optimum. Next: try nudging front sweep down instead of up from 37.6°.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.155	134.0	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.824	162.5	38.3°
crosswind	3.675	156.1	33.2°
gusty_light	3.532	150.1	32.3°
hot_thin	3.363	142.9	27.4°
storm	4.594	195.2	29.8°

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	38.2°
rear sweep	42.4°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	38.1 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate dace2ad0b81d

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.009 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.7% better
scenario mean	3.703 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.612 Wh/km
frame mass	66.1 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 57 via pivot

hypothesisParent f8b8a58e8a20 was sitting essentially on the plateau at 5.973; this pivot bets that thickening the arm waist and steepening both sweep angles could trade a little mass for stiffness or drag improvement.

methodIncreased the arm waist multiplier from ×0.56 to ×0.63, steepened front sweep from 37.6° to 38.8° and rear sweep from 42.4° to 43.3°, and shifted the material mix slightly (0.28→0.31).

resultFitness rose to 6.009, worse than the parent's 5.973 and the 5.972 best-so-far -- not a new winner. The thicker waist added mass without a stiffness payoff, and every scenario got worse, storm most of all (4.61). Worth testing: the sweep-angle change alone, without touching waist thickness.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.162	134.3	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.842	163.2	38.4°
crosswind	3.687	156.7	33.3°
gusty_light	3.543	150.5	32.3°
hot_thin	3.372	143.2	27.4°
storm	4.612	195.9	29.9°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.63
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	38.8°
rear sweep	43.3°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.1 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.81
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate dd8058c94bc8✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.131 Wh/km
vs baseline	11.0% better
scenario mean	3.777 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.707 Wh/km
frame mass	74.8 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 57 via designer

hypothesisA designer probe reusing the champion's proven arm cross-section but testing whether much larger plates and steeper sweep angles could improve the stability/drag trade-off enough to justify the added bulk.

methodKept arm length/width/waist/thickness identical to the champion lineage, but pushed front sweep to 42.0° and rear sweep to 48.0° (vs ~37.6°/42.4°) and enlarged the plates to ×1.22/×1.24 (vs ~×0.98/×1.00).

resultFitness 6.131, notably worse than the 5.972 best-so-far and worse than every plateau candidate. The oversized plates added drag and mass across all six scenarios without a compensating gain, showing the champion's compact plate footprint is load-bearing for its efficiency. Next: retest the steeper sweep angles alone on the champion's original, smaller plate size.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.216	136.6	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.931	167.0	38.8°
crosswind	3.768	160.1	34.1°
gusty_light	3.612	153.4	32.6°
hot_thin	3.430	145.7	27.6°
storm	4.707	199.9	31.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	42.0°
rear sweep	48.0°
plate length	×1.22
plate width	×1.24
deck gap	38.1 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate ad79444f76c2

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.891 Wh/km
vs baseline	0.1% worse
scenario mean	4.246 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.290 Wh/km
frame mass	140.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 57 via immigrant

hypothesisAn immigrant injected to probe a completely different design region -- a bulkier, less-waisted arm in solid carbon-fiber plate stock instead of pa12_cf, betting on raw stiffness over the slender aero-optimized shape.

methodFresh random genome: thicker, barely-waisted arms (×1.04 waist, 5.8mm thickness), shallower sweep angles (~31-36° vs the champion's ~38-42°), a much tighter deck gap (29mm vs ~38mm), and a material switch to cf_plate.

resultFitness 6.891, far worse than the 5.972 best-so-far and the entire current population. The extra bulk and stiffness overshoot cost efficiency in every scenario, especially storm (5.29), confirming this design region is well off the productive plateau. Next: keep exploring immigrants but seed them closer to the pa12_cf material family, since cf_plate consistently underperforms here.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.629	154.2	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.393	186.6	39.2°
crosswind	4.238	180.0	34.0°
gusty_light	4.056	172.3	32.8°
hot_thin	3.870	164.4	27.6°
storm	5.290	224.7	32.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.97
arm width	×1.01
arm waist	×1.04
arm thickness	5.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.2°
rear sweep	35.8°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	29.0 mm
battery wedge	1.8°
plate thickness	×1.05
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 823853d4db89

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	62.2 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 57 via pivot

hypothesisTests whether the arm could be trimmed further than the plateau champion -- thinner waist, less wall thickness -- to cut mass and drag beyond the current optimum.

methodThinned the arm waist multiplier from ×0.56 to ×0.46, cut arm thickness from 4.2mm to 4.0mm, and softened front sweep slightly to 36.9°.

resultInvalid -- failed arm tip deflection under pa12_cf. Combining a thinner waist with reduced wall thickness removed too much stiffness at the tip, marking the champion's waist/thickness pairing as close to the structural floor. Next: thin the waist alone while holding thickness at 4.2mm to isolate which change broke it.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.81
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.46
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.9°
rear sweep	43.2°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	38.4 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 3f6d0c492251

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	64.3 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 57 via pivot

hypothesisSame parent as the plate-trim sibling; this one tests whether shaving a tenth of a millimeter off arm thickness could still pass structurally while cutting mass.

methodReduced arm thickness from 4.2mm to 4.1mm, with arm waist held constant at ×0.56.

resultInvalid -- arm tip deflection under pa12_cf. Even a 0.1mm thickness cut tips this geometry past the limit, reinforcing 4.2mm as roughly the minimum viable thickness for this waist/length combo. Next: try 4.1mm thickness paired with a slightly less aggressive waist to recover the lost stiffness margin.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.8°
rear sweep	42.4°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	38.1 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate ede5a70c9cc5

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	65.2 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 57 via crossover

hypothesisBlends a weaker wide-wedge parent with the plateau champion, betting that a steeper battery wedge plus wider deck gap could improve balance enough to offset the weaker parent's drag penalty.

methodDoubled battery wedge from 0.7° to 1.4°, thinned arm thickness from 4.2mm to 4.1mm, and widened deck gap from 38.9mm to 39.2mm.

resultInvalid -- arm tip deflection under pa12_cf. The thinner arm combined with traits from the weaker (6.011) parent reintroduced fragility that the champion lineage had already eliminated. Next: keep arm thickness at 4.2mm when crossing in genes from any parent above 6.0 fitness.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.81
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.9°
rear sweep	42.5°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	39.2 mm
battery wedge	1.4°
plate thickness	×0.82
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate de6b8ddc7117✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (petg)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	98.7 g
material	petg
born	generation 57 via designer

hypothesisA designer test of whether switching to cheaper, lighter petg material with a full-size, less-waisted arm could still meet stiffness requirements and open a new material branch.

methodUsed full-scale arm length/width (×1.00), a mild waist (×0.75) with thick 5.2mm walls, shallower sweep angles (35.0°/41.0°), and swapped material from pa12_cf to petg.

resultInvalid -- arm tip deflection under petg, despite the arm being thicker and less waisted than the champion. petg's lower stiffness can't be compensated by geometry alone at this scale, ruling it out as a viable material for this frame family. Next: abandon petg for arm structures; if material diversity is still wanted, try cf_plate on a champion-shaped (not designer-shaped) arm instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×1.00
arm waist	×0.75
arm thickness	5.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.0°
rear sweep	41.0°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	38.1 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	petg

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate f8b8a58e8a20✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.973 Wh/km
vs baseline	13.3% better
scenario mean	3.682 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.583 Wh/km
frame mass	64.7 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 56 via designer

hypothesisA designer-authored candidate that essentially reproduces the reigning champion 16463dd9e9f5's exact gene set, testing whether independently regenerating the same design confirms it as a stable, repeatable optimum.

methodGenes match the champion almost exactly (same arm, plate, sweep, and deck-gap values), with no meaningful deviation.

resultScored 5.973, essentially matching but not beating the 5.972 best-so-far — confirming the champion's configuration is a tight, repeatable optimum rather than a fluke, and not a new winner by the slimmest of margins. Next worth deliberately perturbing one gene at a time from this baseline to map the local fitness gradient instead of re-testing the same point.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.149	133.8	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.811	161.9	38.1°
crosswind	3.667	155.8	33.2°
gusty_light	3.524	149.7	32.2°
hot_thin	3.357	142.6	27.4°
storm	4.583	194.7	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.6°
rear sweep	42.4°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	38.1 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 9a2c8f15852b

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.982 Wh/km
vs baseline	13.1% better
scenario mean	3.687 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.590 Wh/km
frame mass	65.4 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 56 via mutation

hypothesisMutating directly off the champion 16463dd9e9f5 (5.972), this candidate bets that a slightly wider plate and arm, paired with an eased front sweep, could trim losses in the weaker scenarios like storm and cold_headwind.

methodPlate width increased (×1.01→×1.03), front sweep reduced (37.6°→36.8°), arm width increased (×0.78→×0.80).

resultCame in at 5.982, slightly worse than the champion's 5.972 — no new winner, though close. The wider plate and arm likely added marginal mass without enough offsetting benefit from the eased sweep; next worth testing the eased front sweep alone, without the width increases, to isolate its effect.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.153	133.9	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.816	162.1	38.1°
crosswind	3.674	156.1	33.2°
gusty_light	3.530	150.0	32.2°
hot_thin	3.362	142.8	27.4°
storm	4.590	195.0	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.8°
rear sweep	42.4°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	38.1 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate fe80462d65b1

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.990 Wh/km
vs baseline	13.0% better
scenario mean	3.692 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.596 Wh/km
frame mass	64.7 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 56 via pivot

hypothesisParent 20502109b058 (5.986) sat just above the champion band; this near-copy pivot bets that small refinements to sweep and deck gap could close the remaining gap to the 5.972 best-so-far.

methodFine-tuned the parent — front and rear sweep each nudged up about 0.1°, deck gap widened from roughly 37.8mm to 39.0mm, plate thickness trimmed slightly.

resultLanded at 5.99, marginally worse than the parent's 5.986 and short of the 5.972 best-so-far — no new winner. The wider deck gap likely added drag/mass without a compensating gain. Next worth pulling the deck gap back toward the champion's ~38mm instead of widening it.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.156	134.1	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.827	162.6	38.3°
crosswind	3.676	156.1	33.2°
gusty_light	3.533	150.1	32.3°
hot_thin	3.364	142.9	27.4°
storm	4.596	195.2	29.7°

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.4°
rear sweep	42.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	39.0 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate e04c703b88da

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.011 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.7% better
scenario mean	3.705 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.612 Wh/km
frame mass	66.0 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 55 via pivot

hypothesisParent 7cb5e0fb0f54 (5.992) was another near-plateau performer; paired with the weaker 04ff0826e748 (6.678), the bet was that a flatter front sweep and rebalanced plate/battery wedge could find a different local optimum.

methodFront sweep pulled back about 1.5° (flatter), plate squared out to full length, plate width trimmed slightly, and battery wedge raised from 0.2° to 0.7°.

resultLanded at 6.011, worse than parent 7cb5e0fb0f54 (5.992) and well off the new champion 16463dd9e9f5 (5.972), with every scenario ticking up slightly. The added battery wedge combined with the flatter sweep looks like a net drag/stability penalty rather than a gain. Next: retest with battery wedge dialed back to ~0.2-0.3° to isolate which change actually hurt.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.165	134.5	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.840	163.1	38.4°
crosswind	3.694	156.9	33.4°
gusty_light	3.546	150.7	32.4°
hot_thin	3.375	143.4	27.4°
storm	4.612	195.9	30.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.82
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.8°
rear sweep	42.5°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	38.9 mm
battery wedge	0.7°
plate thickness	×0.81
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 5f97975f3afe

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.015 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.7% better
scenario mean	3.707 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.614 Wh/km
frame mass	68.4 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 56 via pivot

hypothesisParent a93e38ed8349 (5.997) trailed the champion; this pivot wagers that added battery wedge tilt and a wider deck gap would improve balance enough to close the gap.

methodBattery wedge increased sharply (0.2°→1.1°), deck gap widened (39.3mm→40.2mm), front sweep reduced slightly (35.8°→35.0°), plate thickness increased (×0.87→×0.89).

resultCame in at 6.015, worse than the parent's 5.997 and the 5.972 best-so-far — no new winner. The added wedge tilt and wider deck gap likely raised drag/mass across all scenarios without offsetting gains. Next worth testing a smaller wedge increment (~0.5°) in isolation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.166	134.5	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.839	163.1	38.2°
crosswind	3.699	157.2	33.3°
gusty_light	3.549	150.8	32.2°
hot_thin	3.376	143.4	27.4°
storm	4.614	196.0	29.7°

gene	value
arm length	×0.81
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.50
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.0°
rear sweep	42.3°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	40.2 mm
battery wedge	1.1°
plate thickness	×0.89
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate a2512b2daf2b

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.028 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.5% better
scenario mean	3.715 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.626 Wh/km
frame mass	67.2 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 56 via pivot

hypothesisParent 3f4703e7772e (5.98) was competitive; this pivot bets that longer, steeper-swept arms reinforced with extra thickness would trim energy use further.

methodArm length increased (×0.80→×0.82), front sweep increased (35.5°→36.3°), plate length trimmed (×0.96→×0.95), arm thickness increased (4.2mm→4.4mm).

resultRegressed to 6.028, clearly worse than both the parent's 5.98 and the 5.972 best-so-far — no new winner. The longer, thicker arms likely added more mass than the sweep change saved, especially visible in cold_headwind and storm. Next worth testing the front-sweep change alone without the arm-length/thickness combination.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.171	134.7	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.857	163.8	38.4°
crosswind	3.702	157.3	33.3°
gusty_light	3.555	151.0	32.4°
hot_thin	3.381	143.6	27.5°
storm	4.626	196.5	30.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.82
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.4 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.3°
rear sweep	42.7°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	39.3 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.81
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate d3f2fb06f1ad✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.051 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.1% better
scenario mean	3.729 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.643 Wh/km
frame mass	79.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 56 via designer

hypothesisAnother designer bet testing whether switching to a plain carbon-fiber plate material (cf_plate) could let a very thin (2.6mm) arm survive, shifting the mass/stiffness trade-off in the frame's favor.

methodArm thickness thinned dramatically to 2.6mm, arm waist narrowed (×0.45), plate length and thickness both increased (×1.05, ×1.10), material switched from pa12_cf to cf_plate.

resultUnlike the similarly thin-armed pa12_cf candidates, this one survived validation, landing at 6.051 — worse than the 5.972 best-so-far across every scenario, especially calm_warm and storm. The cf_plate material let the thin arm pass structurally, but the added plate mass/thickness ate any efficiency gain; next worth testing cf_plate with the champion's arm/plate proportions rather than this extreme combination.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.205	136.2	25.2°
cold_headwind	3.834	162.9	37.5°
crosswind	3.704	157.3	32.8°
gusty_light	3.572	151.7	31.8°
hot_thin	3.418	145.2	27.1°
storm	4.643	197.3	29.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.95
arm waist	×0.45
arm thickness	2.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.6°
rear sweep	42.4°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.10
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate b3a1cb1cb13a

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	67.9 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 56 via pivot

hypothesisParent 4bded3c61d40 carried no logged fitness (likely an earlier structurally-marginal branch); this pivot bets that a steeper front sweep plus a modest arm and plate thickness bump could finally make that lineage viable.

methodIncreased front sweep from 34.8° to 37.1°, thickened arms from 4.0mm to 4.3mm, thickened the plate about 5% (×0.83→×0.87), and tightened the deck gap slightly (37.8mm→36.9mm).

resultFailed arm tip deflection under pa12_cf — the small thickness gain wasn't enough to offset the longer moment arm from the steeper sweep. This confirms front-sweep increases need a proportionally larger thickness bump to stay within deflection limits; worth testing arm thickness at 4.5mm+ for this sweep angle next.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.85
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.1°
rear sweep	42.1°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	36.9 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.87
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate e6807e66c54d

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	66.8 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 56 via pivot

hypothesisAlso descending from 3f4703e7772e (5.98), this pivot bets that leveling the battery wedge to 0° alongside a stiffer plate could cut trim losses without compromising structure.

methodPlate thickness increased (×0.81→×0.88), arm length increased (×0.80→×0.83), battery wedge leveled from 0.3° to 0.0°, deck gap widened slightly (38.9mm→39.3mm).

resultFailed arm tip deflection under pa12_cf — the longer arms exceeded what the unchanged arm thickness could support, and the extra plate thickness didn't help the arms themselves. This shows arm-length increases need matching arm-thickness increases, not plate reinforcement; worth testing the leveled battery wedge alone on the original arm length.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.4°
rear sweep	42.6°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	39.3 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.88
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate e8bf781f6fd4

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (asa)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	79.4 g
material	asa
born	generation 56 via immigrant

hypothesisA fresh immigrant injected to probe unexplored territory — bulkier arms, a wider plate, a steep battery wedge, and a switch to ASA material — betting a structurally different design might reveal an untried efficiency niche.

methodArm length and width increased about 8%, arm waist tightened to ×0.46, arm thickness raised to 4.9mm, rear sweep steepened to 48.8°, battery wedge raised to 13.4°, material switched to ASA.

resultFailed arm tip deflection despite the thicker 4.9mm arms — ASA's lower stiffness relative to pa12_cf meant the aggressive rear sweep and wedge combination still exceeded deflection limits. This confirms ASA needs either much thicker arms or a tamer sweep/wedge profile to be viable; next worth testing ASA with the champion's conservative sweep angles instead of an aggressive immigrant profile.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.08
arm width	×1.08
arm waist	×0.46
arm thickness	4.9 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.6°
rear sweep	48.8°
plate length	×0.88
plate width	×1.16
deck gap	39.9 mm
battery wedge	13.4°
plate thickness	×0.87
material	asa

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 59cdb425a62a

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	64.5 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 56 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing 20502109b058 (5.986) and 3f4703e7772e (5.98) bets that blending their independent adjustments — a tighter deck gap and altered sweep angles — could out-perform both parents.

methodDeck gap tightened substantially (39.1mm→36.8mm), arm length increased (×0.79→×0.83), rear sweep reduced (42.5°→41.0°), front sweep reduced slightly (37.4°→37.1°), arm thickness thinned slightly (4.2mm→4.1mm).

resultFailed arm tip deflection under pa12_cf — the combination of longer arms with slightly thinned thickness plus a much tighter deck gap pushed the structure past its limit. This shows deck-gap tightening interacts badly with reduced arm thickness; next worth testing the tighter deck gap alone against the champion's arm thickness rather than combined with a thinner arm.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.1°
rear sweep	41.0°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	36.8 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 5ed32770104b✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	63.7 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 56 via designer

hypothesisA designer-proposed candidate betting that a much fuller, wider arm waist and width could compensate structurally for a dramatically thinner (3.0mm) arm, trimming mass significantly if the theory holds.

methodArm width increased sharply (to ×1.20), arm waist widened to ×1.05 (fuller, less pinched), arm thickness thinned to 3.0mm, arm length shortened to ×0.80.

resultFailed arm tip deflection under pa12_cf — the thin 3.0mm arm couldn't be rescued by the wider waist and width alone. This suggests arm thickness has a hard floor around 4mm+ for pa12_cf at these span lengths regardless of width/waist compensation; next worth testing the wider-waist idea at the champion's ~4.2mm thickness instead of an aggressive thinning.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×1.20
arm waist	×1.05
arm thickness	3.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.6°
rear sweep	42.4°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate f7fc69302dadnew best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.985 Wh/km
vs baseline	13.1% better
scenario mean	3.689 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.591 Wh/km
frame mass	65.1 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 54 via pivot

hypothesisParent 6c89b6db1b4e was already the incoming best-so-far genome; this pivot bets that nudging plate width up, opening the front sweep slightly, and tightening the deck gap can shave a little more off an already near-optimal design rather than exploring a new region.

methodWidened the plates about 2%, opened the front arm sweep by roughly half a degree, and closed the deck gap by about half a millimeter versus the fitter parent; arm length held unchanged at the parent's value.

resultFitness landed at 5.985 Wh/km, a hair below the incoming best-so-far of 5.986, making it a NEW WINNER by a razor-thin margin. Storm stayed the dominant scenario cost as usual, so the tweak mostly trimmed mass/drag rather than fixing the storm weakness. Worth testing next: push deck gap and plate width further in the same direction to see if the gain continues or plateaus.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.156	134.1	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.816	162.1	38.1°
crosswind	3.676	156.2	33.2°
gusty_light	3.532	150.0	32.2°
hot_thin	3.364	142.9	27.4°
storm	4.591	195.0	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.7°
rear sweep	42.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	38.7 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 20502109b058

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.986 Wh/km
vs baseline	13.1% better
scenario mean	3.689 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.592 Wh/km
frame mass	64.7 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 55 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing near-tied parents 6c89b6db1b4e (5.986) and e6483b058331 (5.989) tested whether blending their genomes, rather than pivoting one, could combine their strengths.

methodTakes essentially 6c89b6db1b4e's full gene set, only trimming arm length slightly.

resultLanded at 5.986, matching parent 6c89b6db1b4e exactly -- confirming this region is a stable local optimum, but still behind the new champion 16463dd9e9f5 (5.972). The arm-length trim was fitness-neutral, reinforcing that the deck-gap/material change is what actually moved the needle this generation. Next: graft the champion's deck-gap and material tweaks onto this arm-length variant.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.155	134.0	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.824	162.4	38.2°
crosswind	3.673	156.0	33.2°
gusty_light	3.531	150.0	32.3°
hot_thin	3.363	142.9	27.4°
storm	4.592	195.1	29.8°

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.4°
rear sweep	42.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	39.1 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 39ea5af00974

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.990 Wh/km
vs baseline	13.0% better
scenario mean	3.691 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.596 Wh/km
frame mass	64.9 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 55 via pivot

hypothesisParent 3f4703e7772e (5.98) was itself essentially at the best-so-far mark; this candidate bet that a slightly longer plate and trimmed battery wedge could nudge it even lower.

methodPlate lengthened and narrowed a touch, battery wedge reduced from 0.3° to 0.2°, rear sweep opened to 43.0°.

resultCame in at 5.99, a small regression from parent 3f4703e7772e (5.98) and behind champion 16463dd9e9f5 (5.972). The opened rear sweep looks like the likely culprit, adding a hair of drag in crosswind and storm despite the leaner battery wedge. Next: retry the plate-length/width change with rear sweep held at the parent's tighter angle.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.154	134.0	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.826	162.5	38.2°
crosswind	3.677	156.2	33.2°
gusty_light	3.533	150.1	32.2°
hot_thin	3.363	142.9	27.4°
storm	4.596	195.3	29.7°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.4°
rear sweep	43.0°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	38.6 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.82
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate fb32f197ac4c

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.997 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.9% better
scenario mean	3.696 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.602 Wh/km
frame mass	66.0 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 55 via pivot

hypothesisParent e6483b058331 (5.989) sat near the top of the pack; the bet was that a thicker plate and tighter rear sweep could trim margin off the storm-heavy tail cost.

methodRear sweep tightened about 0.4°, plate thickness increased slightly, deck gap opened a touch.

resultFinished at 5.997, essentially flat with sibling cc62aceb9b2a and behind both parent e6483b058331 (5.989) and champion 16463dd9e9f5 (5.972) -- the per-scenario numbers match that sibling almost exactly, suggesting this region of small rear-sweep/plate-thickness tweaks is flat ground. Next: skip further micro-tweaks here and instead graft the champion's deck-gap tightening onto this parent.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.156	134.1	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.828	162.6	38.1°
crosswind	3.684	156.5	33.2°
gusty_light	3.538	150.3	32.2°
hot_thin	3.366	143.0	27.4°
storm	4.602	195.5	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.4°
rear sweep	42.1°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.1 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.83
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate a93e38ed8349

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.997 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.9% better
scenario mean	3.696 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.602 Wh/km
frame mass	67.5 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 54 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two near-identical, similarly fit parents (5.997 and 5.996) bets that averaging their genes converges toward a stable local optimum rather than seeking a new one.

methodThe gene changes were negligible — essentially a blend of two already near-identical parents with no notable shift in any dimension.

resultFitness landed at 5.997, matching the parents almost exactly and confirming the population has converged tightly around this gene combination. This kind of near-duplicate crossover produces little exploration value at this stage. Next idea: favor crossovers between more genetically distant parents to escape this converged basin rather than re-blending near-twins.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.158	134.2	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.828	162.6	38.1°
crosswind	3.681	156.4	33.1°
gusty_light	3.538	150.3	32.2°
hot_thin	3.368	143.1	27.3°
storm	4.602	195.5	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.49
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.8°
rear sweep	42.2°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.3 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.87
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate cc62aceb9b2a

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.997 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.9% better
scenario mean	3.697 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.601 Wh/km
frame mass	65.4 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 55 via pivot

hypothesisParent f7fc69302dad (5.985) was essentially tied with the leading pack; this candidate bet that shorter arms and slightly less material fill could uncover margin the plateau hadn't explored.

methodArm length trimmed slightly, material fill reduced a touch, front sweep pulled back about 0.3°, arm thickness nudged up to 4.3mm.

resultCame in at 5.997, a small regression from parent f7fc69302dad (5.985) and well behind champion 16463dd9e9f5 (5.972). The thicker arm and lighter material fill roughly cancelled each other out, leaving every scenario flat-to-worse. Next: try the thicker arm alone, without cutting material fill, to see if stiffness was the useful half of this move.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.161	134.3	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.831	162.8	38.3°
crosswind	3.680	156.3	33.2°
gusty_light	3.538	150.3	32.3°
hot_thin	3.369	143.1	27.4°
storm	4.601	195.5	29.7°

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.4°
rear sweep	42.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	38.7 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate e02176a3ea91

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.998 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.9% better
scenario mean	3.697 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.602 Wh/km
frame mass	67.5 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 55 via crossover

hypothesisParents fdf4ad74657b (5.998) and a93e38ed8349 (5.997) were nearly identical genomes already, so this crossover served more as a convergence check than a real design bet.

methodGene changes are negligible -- the offspring is essentially a straight copy of the near-identical parents.

resultFinished at 5.998, matching the parents almost exactly, confirming this sub-lineage has fully converged on a local plateau about 0.03 Wh/km behind champion 16463dd9e9f5 (5.972). With parents this similar, crossover adds nothing here. Next: retire this near-duplicate lineage in favor of exploring the champion's tighter deck-gap direction.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.159	134.2	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.828	162.6	38.1°
crosswind	3.683	156.5	33.1°
gusty_light	3.539	150.4	32.2°
hot_thin	3.369	143.1	27.3°
storm	4.602	195.5	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.50
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.4°
rear sweep	42.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.1 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.88
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate b8d03e1498b5✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.024 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.5% better
scenario mean	3.714 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.619 Wh/km
frame mass	64.7 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 55 via designer

hypothesisA Claude-designed candidate built from the mainline's slender arm proportions, testing whether a much steeper 9° battery wedge (versus the mainline's ~0.2-0.3°) could shift weight balance favorably.

methodNear-mainline arm geometry but with battery wedge raised sharply to 9.0° and the plate slightly shortened.

resultScored 6.024, valid but middling -- worse than champion 16463dd9e9f5 (5.972) and every mainline pivot this generation. The steep battery wedge appears to be a net negative at this scale, consistent with the mainline's convergence toward a near-flat wedge. Next: rerun this geometry with battery wedge dialed back to ~0.2-0.3° to isolate the wedge's cost.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.177	135.0	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.850	163.6	38.3°
crosswind	3.703	157.3	33.4°
gusty_light	3.554	151.0	32.4°
hot_thin	3.383	143.7	27.5°
storm	4.619	196.2	30.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.5°
rear sweep	42.7°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.9 mm
battery wedge	9.0°
plate thickness	×0.81
material	pa12_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 75e5d886f9df✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.163 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.5% better
scenario mean	3.799 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.728 Wh/km
frame mass	79.3 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 55 via designer

hypothesisA designer candidate probing the opposite lever -- keep the mainline's taper and length but go narrower and thicker, betting a stubbier cross-section could still save mass while staying safely stiff.

methodArm width narrowed sharply while thickness was increased to 6.2mm to compensate structurally.

resultValid this time, but scored 6.163 -- clearly worse than champion 16463dd9e9f5 (5.972) and every mainline pivot, the worst showing among valid candidates this generation. The thicker cross-section needed to survive the narrow width added enough mass/drag to erase any savings. Next: split the difference with a more modest width cut so thickness doesn't need to jump as much to stay safe.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.239	137.6	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.944	167.6	38.3°
crosswind	3.795	161.2	33.4°
gusty_light	3.636	154.5	32.4°
hot_thin	3.454	146.7	27.5°
storm	4.728	200.9	30.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.60
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	6.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.5°
rear sweep	42.7°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.9 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.81
material	pa12_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate ae3c1d08a7a0

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	7.733 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.3% worse
scenario mean	4.755 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.956 Wh/km
frame mass	181.2 g
material	pla_plus
born	generation 55 via immigrant

hypothesisAnother diversity immigrant, probing whether a softer pla_plus material combined with a steep battery wedge could open a different efficiency path than the pa12_cf mainline.

methodModerately oversized arms with a large 8.8° battery wedge and a switch to pla_plus material.

resultScored 7.733 -- better than the other immigrant but still far behind champion 16463dd9e9f5 (5.972). The steep battery wedge and bulkier pla_plus geometry both add drag/mass penalties across every scenario. Next: if pla_plus is worth revisiting, pair it with the mainline's slender arm profile instead of an oversized one.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.983	169.2	26.2°
cold_headwind	5.097	216.5	41.8°
crosswind	4.738	201.3	36.5°
gusty_light	4.507	191.5	34.6°
hot_thin	4.248	180.5	28.7°
storm	5.956	253.0	42.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.03
arm width	×1.28
arm waist	×1.16
arm thickness	8.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	39.5°
rear sweep	47.5°
plate length	×1.24
plate width	×1.17
deck gap	44.6 mm
battery wedge	8.8°
plate thickness	×1.18
material	pla_plus

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 6fb2427a7e1a

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	8.275 Wh/km
vs baseline	20.2% worse
scenario mean	5.087 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.375 Wh/km
frame mass	227.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 55 via immigrant

hypothesisWith the population tightly converged around 5.98-6.0, this immigrant was injected to probe a structurally different corner of the design space -- a much bulkier, stiffer frame -- in case the plateau is only local.

methodA large jump to oversized arms (much longer, wider, and thicker) with a wider plate and a switch to rigid cf_plate material.

resultScored 8.275, the worst result this generation and far behind champion 16463dd9e9f5 (5.972) -- the extra mass from the oversized, stiff-material arms clearly outweighs any stiffness benefit. It confirms the population's slender, tapered-arm design is genuinely closer to optimal rather than just stuck. Next: use immigrants like this to seed sweep-angle or material diversity rather than raw bulk.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	4.285	182.0	26.2°
cold_headwind	5.435	230.9	41.9°
crosswind	5.044	214.3	36.2°
gusty_light	4.816	204.6	34.6°
hot_thin	4.566	194.0	28.7°
storm	6.375	270.8	42.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×1.37
arm waist	×1.01
arm thickness	7.9 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	46.4°
rear sweep	44.1°
plate length	×1.17
plate width	×1.22
deck gap	32.4 mm
battery wedge	3.7°
plate thickness	×0.73
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 4bded3c61d40

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	64.3 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 55 via pivot

hypothesisParent e6483b058331 (5.989) was strong but the pair bet that a longer, narrower, thinner arm (less mass) with a tighter deck gap could cut energy use further.

methodArm lengthened noticeably, arm width narrowed, arm thickness thinned from 4.2mm to 4.0mm, deck gap tightened over a millimeter.

resultInvalid -- failed arm tip deflection under pa12_cf. Stretching the arm longer while simultaneously narrowing and thinning it pushed tip flex past the material's safe margin; pa12_cf can't absorb both moves at once. Next: keep the longer arm but hold thickness at 4.2mm (or thicker) to test whether length alone is survivable.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.84
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.8°
rear sweep	42.1°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	37.8 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.83
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 34b022298ce5✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	61.9 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 55 via designer

hypothesisA designer candidate testing the opposite trade-off from the mainline -- a much less tapered, thinner arm -- to see if cutting taper could save mass without sacrificing stiffness.

methodArm width narrowed while the waist taper was relaxed dramatically toward untapered, and thickness thinned to 3.5mm.

resultInvalid -- failed arm tip deflection under pa12_cf. Removing taper while also thinning the cross-section left too little material at the tip to resist bending, the same failure mode as 4bded3c61d40 via a different gene combination. It confirms arm taper and thickness are tightly coupled constraints in pa12_cf. Next: test relaxed taper with thickness held at the mainline's 4.2mm rather than thinned.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.68
arm waist	×0.95
arm thickness	3.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.5°
rear sweep	42.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	39.0 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.81
material	pa12_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 6c89b6db1b4enew best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.986 Wh/km
vs baseline	13.1% better
scenario mean	3.690 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.593 Wh/km
frame mass	64.8 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 53 via crossover

hypothesisWith 7cb5e0fb0f54 and fdf4ad74657b both sitting at the top of the plateau, this crossover bets that recombining their nearly-identical genomes with a slight sweep and material adjustment could squeeze out marginal gains where the two parents differ.

methodOpened the front sweep angle by about a degree, nudged the material composite ratio slightly, and tightened the arm waist a touch — otherwise inherited the shared parent genome almost unchanged.

resultFitness 5.986 — a NEW WINNER, edging out both parents and the prior best-so-far, with every scenario including storm improving marginally. The wider front sweep combined with the adjusted material mix appears to shave a small, consistent margin off drag across all weather scenarios rather than winning big in any one. Worth testing next: push the front sweep open further in the same direction to see if 37.3° is a local optimum or if more gain is available.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.154	134.0	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.823	162.4	38.3°
crosswind	3.674	156.1	33.2°
gusty_light	3.531	150.0	32.3°
hot_thin	3.363	142.9	27.4°
storm	4.593	195.1	29.7°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.3°
rear sweep	42.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	39.1 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate e6483b058331

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.989 Wh/km
vs baseline	13.0% better
scenario mean	3.691 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.596 Wh/km
frame mass	65.5 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 54 via mutation

hypothesisParent 7cb5e0fb0f54 (5.992) was already strong; this mutation bets that a shallower front sweep and slightly thicker plate can push it closer to the leading edge.

methodReduced front sweep from 36.3° to 35.4° and thickened the plate slightly from ×0.80 to ×0.82, leaving all other genes unchanged.

resultFitness improved to 5.989 from the parent's 5.992, but fell just short of the generation's best-so-far of 5.980 set by a sibling pivot with a very similar sweep change. This near-miss shows the shallower front-sweep direction is genuinely promising, but the plate-thickness increase here likely cost slightly more than the plate-length/width trims used by the winning candidate. Next idea: pair this front-sweep reduction with the plate length/width shrink from the winning candidate instead of a plate thickness increase.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.154	134.0	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.822	162.4	38.1°
crosswind	3.677	156.2	33.1°
gusty_light	3.534	150.1	32.2°
hot_thin	3.364	142.9	27.4°
storm	4.596	195.2	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.4°
rear sweep	42.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.0 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.82
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 7cb5e0fb0f54new best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.992 Wh/km
vs baseline	13.0% better
scenario mean	3.693 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.597 Wh/km
frame mass	65.1 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 52 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two mid-pack parents (07b4654d6ff5 at 6.009 and 3f2badcff637 at 6.081), this bets that combining the first parent's overall layout with a slightly slimmer arm cross-section could squeeze out extra efficiency without sacrificing structural margin.

methodTrimmed arm width by about 4% and arm thickness by roughly 0.1mm relative to the first parent, keeping the rest of the layout unchanged.

resultFitness came in at 5.992 — a NEW BEST-SO-FAR, beating the previous record of 5.996 and both parents outright. The small arm cross-section reduction shaved weight uniformly across all six scenarios without tipping any of them into instability, with storm holding steady at 4.60. This confirms the population has room to keep shrinking arm cross-section slightly further; worth testing an even smaller arm width/thickness combination next, watching closely for the deflection wall other candidates hit this generation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.156	134.1	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.826	162.5	38.2°
crosswind	3.678	156.3	33.2°
gusty_light	3.535	150.2	32.3°
hot_thin	3.365	143.0	27.4°
storm	4.597	195.3	29.8°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.3°
rear sweep	42.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.0 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 1729223b862a

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.997 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.9% better
scenario mean	3.696 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.601 Wh/km
frame mass	68.0 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 53 via crossover

hypothesisA self-cross of plateau leader fdf4ad74657b, essentially a mutation-only exploration testing whether shifting the battery tilt and plate thickness slightly can find a nearby local improvement.

methodTilted the battery wedge up, thickened the plate a bit, and thinned the arm width slightly.

resultFitness 5.997, nearly identical to the parent and just off best-so-far — no new winner, but it confirms the plateau is broad and forgiving of small battery-tilt and thickness perturbations. Worth testing next: try a larger battery-wedge change in isolation, since this modest nudge produced essentially no effect.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.157	134.1	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.824	162.4	38.1°
crosswind	3.688	156.7	33.2°
gusty_light	3.539	150.4	32.2°
hot_thin	3.368	143.1	27.3°
storm	4.601	195.5	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.50
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.4°
rear sweep	42.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.1 mm
battery wedge	0.8°
plate thickness	×0.91
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate fdf4ad74657b

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.998 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.9% better
scenario mean	3.697 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.603 Wh/km
frame mass	67.4 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 51 via pivot

hypothesisSame premise as its sibling pivot — parent ecf9c2cbfabb is at the floor (5.996) — but this branch plays it safe with a near-identical restatement to confirm reproducibility rather than push a risky change.

methodGenes essentially unchanged from the parent.

resultFitness came in at 5.998, matching the parent and confirming the design is stable at the plateau, but it lands just above best-so-far (5.995531) — no new winner. Worth testing next: since this genome sits right at a local optimum, try a small deliberate single-gene perturbation (e.g. front sweep only) instead of a duplicate restatement to map the plateau's true edges.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.158	134.2	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.828	162.6	38.1°
crosswind	3.683	156.5	33.1°
gusty_light	3.539	150.4	32.2°
hot_thin	3.369	143.1	27.3°
storm	4.603	195.5	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.50
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.4°
rear sweep	42.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.1 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.88
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 83792dd52e39

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.008 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.7% better
scenario mean	3.703 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.610 Wh/km
frame mass	67.5 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 54 via mutation

hypothesisParent 222fa0a5784b (6.014) sat mid-pack with a notably steep battery wedge (1.3°); this mutation bets that trimming arm width and plate thickness slightly can claw back some of that gap.

methodNarrowed the arms from ×0.81 to ×0.79, shifted the material mix up to 0.29, and thinned the plate slightly from ×0.87 to ×0.86.

resultFitness improved modestly to 6.008 from the parent's 6.014, but stayed well short of the generation's best-so-far of 5.980. The small arm/plate trims helped a little, but the parent's steep 1.3° battery wedge — carried over unchanged — likely caps how competitive this line can get against the ~0.2-0.3° wedge used by the leaders. Next idea: mutate the battery wedge back down toward 0.2-0.3° on this line and see if it closes the remaining gap.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.164	134.4	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.834	162.9	38.3°
crosswind	3.694	156.9	33.3°
gusty_light	3.545	150.6	32.3°
hot_thin	3.374	143.3	27.4°
storm	4.610	195.8	29.8°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.6°
rear sweep	43.2°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.7 mm
battery wedge	1.3°
plate thickness	×0.86
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 9f5f6a4a59be

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.010 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.7% better
scenario mean	3.704 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.612 Wh/km
frame mass	69.2 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 54 via crossover

hypothesisA self-cross of fdf4ad74657b (5.998) with itself bets that recombining its own genes with a tighter arm waist and slightly heavier plate can squeeze out incremental gains within an already-converged design.

methodTightened arm waist from ×0.50 to ×0.46, widened plate width to ×1.03, thickened plate to ×0.91, and bumped arm thickness slightly to 4.4mm.

resultFitness came in at 6.010, marginally worse than the parent's 5.998 and off the generation best of 5.980. Tightening the waist further while adding plate mass looks like it crossed into a regime where the added stiffness doesn't offset the extra weight. Next idea: try the tighter waist alone without the plate width/thickness increases to see if waist tightening in isolation still hurts.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.162	134.3	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.836	163.0	38.1°
crosswind	3.692	156.8	33.1°
gusty_light	3.546	150.7	32.2°
hot_thin	3.374	143.3	27.3°
storm	4.612	195.9	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.46
arm thickness	4.4 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.4°
rear sweep	42.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	39.1 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.91
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate c51423b2da03

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.034 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.4% better
scenario mean	3.719 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.630 Wh/km
frame mass	68.7 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 54 via pivot

hypothesisParent b964270b85eb (6.018) was mid-pack; crossing with a weak parent bets that borrowing a steeper rear sweep and thicker plate can recover some of the gap to the leaders.

methodIncreased rear sweep from 42.5° to 43.6°, thickened the plate from ×0.88 to ×0.91, and made small arm length/width adjustments (length up to ×0.81, width down to ×0.81).

resultFitness was 6.034, slightly worse than the fitter parent's 6.018 and well off the generation's best-so-far of 5.980. The extra rear sweep and plate thickness added mass without a compensating aerodynamic or structural payoff. Next idea: try the rear-sweep increase alone, without the plate-thickness bump, to isolate whether sweep or mass is the drag on fitness.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.177	135.0	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.855	163.8	38.3°
crosswind	3.704	157.3	33.3°
gusty_light	3.559	151.2	32.3°
hot_thin	3.388	143.9	27.4°
storm	4.630	196.7	30.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.81
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.5°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.2 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.91
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate e089a121b62d

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.048 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.2% better
scenario mean	3.728 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.640 Wh/km
frame mass	71.5 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 54 via pivot

hypothesisWith one fit parent (5.996) and one weak parent (7.598), the bet was that borrowing the weak parent's heavier arm thickness and steeper battery wedge might buy structural margin or handling benefit worth the added mass.

methodThickened the arms from 4.3mm to 4.7mm, tilted the battery wedge from 0.2° up to 1.1°, lengthened arms slightly to ×0.82, and nudged plate width up to ×1.02.

resultFitness came in at 6.048, worse than both the fitter parent (5.996) and the generation's best-so-far (5.980), so the heavier-arm/steeper-wedge bet didn't pay off. This confirms the population is already near a local mass/stiffness optimum where extra arm thickness is pure overhead. Next idea: keep arm thickness near 4.2-4.3mm and isolate the battery wedge change alone to see if wedge angle has any independent effect.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.180	135.1	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.865	164.2	38.4°
crosswind	3.722	158.1	33.4°
gusty_light	3.567	151.6	32.3°
hot_thin	3.392	144.1	27.4°
storm	4.640	197.1	30.0°

gene	value
arm length	×0.82
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.49
arm thickness	4.7 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.3°
rear sweep	42.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	39.0 mm
battery wedge	1.1°
plate thickness	×0.87
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 6cac436f3769✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.165 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.5% better
scenario mean	3.800 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.730 Wh/km
frame mass	78.8 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 54 via designer

hypothesisWith the evolved population converging tightly around ~5.98-6.05, this designer proposal bets on a structurally different concept — much narrower, thicker arms — to see if a different frame topology can outperform the incremental gene-pool.

methodBuilt from scratch with slim ×0.62 arm width but a beefy 5.8mm arm thickness and a wide ×0.70 waist, keeping sweep and plate dimensions close to typical population values.

resultFitness was 6.165, well behind the generation best of 5.980 and even behind most evolved candidates, showing the narrow-but-thick arm concept trades too much mass for stiffness compared to the population's converged wider-but-thinner arm geometry. This is a useful boundary probe: it confirms the evolved arm width/thickness ratio near ×0.77-0.83 width and ~4.2mm thickness is closer to optimal than this more conservative structural choice. Next idea: take this design's narrow arm width but pair it with the population's thinner ~4.2mm thickness to see if that hybrid narrows the gap.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.242	137.7	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.950	167.8	38.6°
crosswind	3.790	161.0	33.5°
gusty_light	3.634	154.4	32.6°
hot_thin	3.456	146.8	27.6°
storm	4.730	200.9	31.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.62
arm waist	×0.70
arm thickness	5.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.3°
rear sweep	42.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	39.0 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 345feac125e3✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.829 Wh/km
vs baseline	0.8% better
scenario mean	4.206 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.248 Wh/km
frame mass	133.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 54 via designer

hypothesisThis designer proposal goes further afield, betting that a longer frame in a different material (solid CF plate instead of PA12-CF) could unlock a lighter, stiffer structure than the printed-composite population has found.

methodBuilt from scratch with arms 15% longer than baseline, plates enlarged (~12% longer, ~10% wider) but thinner (×0.65), narrow ×0.62 arm width, thick 6.5mm arms, and switched material to solid carbon-fiber plate.

resultFitness was 6.829, the worst result in the generation and far off the 5.980 best-so-far, dominated across every scenario including storm (5.25 vs ~4.59 for the leader). The combination of a bigger, longer frame and a different material stack seems to have added mass and drag faster than any stiffness benefit from the material switch. Next idea: if exploring cf_plate material again, pair it with the population's smaller ×0.80 arm-length scale rather than stretching the frame, to isolate whether the material itself helps.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.559	151.2	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.406	187.2	39.7°
crosswind	4.207	178.7	34.6°
gusty_light	4.012	170.5	33.2°
hot_thin	3.802	161.5	27.9°
storm	5.248	222.9	34.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×0.62
arm waist	×0.75
arm thickness	6.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.0°
rear sweep	43.0°
plate length	×1.12
plate width	×1.10
deck gap	39.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 223e13e55c6d

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	68.7 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 54 via pivot

hypothesisCrossing a fit parent (5.996) with a weak one (7.598) bets that a longer, heavier-material arm could unlock a sturdier frame that tolerates more aggressive slimming elsewhere.

methodLengthened the arms from ×0.80 to ×0.85, widened the deck gap to 40.3mm, shifted the material blend, and loosened the arm waist taper to ×0.53.

resultInvalid — failed the arm tip deflection check for pa12_cf material. The longer arm combined with a still-slim waist pushed bending deflection past the safety limit, showing arm length and waist taper can't both be relaxed together at this material's stiffness. Next idea: if testing longer arms again, pair the length increase with a waist widening (not a taper) or a thickness bump to keep deflection in bounds.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.85
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.53
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.3°
rear sweep	42.7°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	40.3 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.87
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate f8f4d44c2784

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	64.7 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 54 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing e83b6dd5a943 (6.012) with the near-best 6c89b6db1b4e (5.986) bets that a lighter arm/plate combo can combine the best traits of both parents into a lower-mass frame.

methodThinned the arms from 4.2mm to 3.9mm, thickened the plate from ×0.80 to ×0.84, widened arms slightly to ×0.81, and shifted the material mix down to 0.26.

resultInvalid — failed the arm tip deflection check for pa12_cf material. Shaving arm thickness below roughly 4mm appears to be the failure boundary for this material/geometry, even with other parameters compensating. Next idea: hold arm thickness at ≥4.2mm and instead pursue the plate-thickness/material-mix changes on their own to see if those alone helped.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	3.9 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.4°
rear sweep	42.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	45.0 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.84
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate ecf9c2cbfabbnew best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.996 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.9% better
scenario mean	3.695 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.600 Wh/km
frame mass	67.4 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 49 via crossover

hypothesisA self-cross of the reigning best e7bb72f4bb57 tests whether a narrower arm waist alone, trimming mass at the arm's thinnest point, can push past the current plateau.

methodArm waist narrowed noticeably (from ×0.56 to ×0.50) with only a hair more arm width and no other structural change.

resultFitness dropped to 5.996, a NEW WINNER, beating the prior best-so-far of 6.019 and improving across every one of the six scenarios (storm down to 4.60, calm_warm down to 3.16). The narrower waist trimmed material right where the arm carries the least bending load, buying efficiency without triggering the deflection risk seen elsewhere this generation. Worth pushing the waist ratio even lower next to find where the deflection limit finally bites.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.158	134.2	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.825	162.5	38.1°
crosswind	3.682	156.4	33.1°
gusty_light	3.538	150.3	32.2°
hot_thin	3.368	143.1	27.3°
storm	4.600	195.4	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.50
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.4°
rear sweep	42.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.1 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.88
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate f7e998f4f133

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.996 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.9% better
scenario mean	3.696 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.601 Wh/km
frame mass	67.4 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 53 via pivot

hypothesisBoth parents sit near the plateau, one much weaker; this pivot effectively tests whether inheriting almost entirely from the fitter parent, with barely any pull from the weaker one, still holds the line.

methodGenes came out nearly identical to the fitter parent — negligible net change to any dimension.

resultFitness 5.996, an exact match to parent ecf9c2cbfabb — no new winner, just confirmation that this genome region is already converged. Worth testing next: favor pivots that pull harder from the weaker parent's differentiated traits, since this one contributed no new exploration.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.159	134.2	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.825	162.5	38.1°
crosswind	3.682	156.4	33.2°
gusty_light	3.539	150.3	32.2°
hot_thin	3.369	143.1	27.3°
storm	4.601	195.5	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.50
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.4°
rear sweep	42.6°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.1 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.88
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate d131a061a31c

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.997 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.9% better
scenario mean	3.696 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.602 Wh/km
frame mass	67.5 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 53 via pivot

hypothesisfdf4ad74657b is one of the plateau leaders; this pivot makes a conservative bet that small nudges to plate length and sweep angles, pulled lightly from the weaker parent, might shave a sliver more efficiency without disturbing what already works.

methodShrank plate length fractionally, opened both front and rear sweep by roughly half a degree, and widened the deck gap slightly.

resultFitness 5.997, essentially a dead heat with parent fdf4ad74657b and just a hair off the best-so-far — not a new winner, but it confirms the plateau is very flat around these values. Worth testing next: push the sweep angles further in the same direction rather than fractionally, since this micro-nudge produced almost no signal.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.158	134.2	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.828	162.6	38.1°
crosswind	3.681	156.4	33.1°
gusty_light	3.538	150.3	32.2°
hot_thin	3.368	143.1	27.3°
storm	4.602	195.5	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.49
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.8°
rear sweep	42.2°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.3 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.87
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate e83b6dd5a943✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.012 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.7% better
scenario mean	3.705 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.613 Wh/km
frame mass	66.3 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 53 via designer

hypothesisUsing the same core geometry as the converged plateau design, this designer submission bets that widening the deck gap substantially could improve airflow or vibration isolation between plate layers without the weight cost of a larger structural change.

methodKept arm and plate dimensions at the plateau baseline but widened the deck gap notably, from about 39mm to 45mm.

resultFitness 6.012, close to but still worse than best-so-far and worse than the plateau designs it echoes — a modest but real efficiency cost from the wider deck gap. Worth testing next: try a smaller deck-gap increase, a couple millimeters rather than six, to see if there's a sweet spot between the current ~39mm and this overshoot.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.165	134.5	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.844	163.3	38.4°
crosswind	3.690	156.8	33.3°
gusty_light	3.546	150.6	32.4°
hot_thin	3.375	143.4	27.5°
storm	4.613	196.0	30.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.3°
rear sweep	42.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	45.0 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 222fa0a5784b

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.014 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.7% better
scenario mean	3.707 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.615 Wh/km
frame mass	67.9 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 53 via pivot

hypothesisParent 7cb5e0fb0f54 is the standing best-so-far; this pivot bets that adding a battery tilt borrowed from the weaker parent could rebalance weight distribution for a further gain.

methodTilted the battery wedge angle up substantially, thickened the plate, and lengthened and widened the arm slightly.

resultFitness 6.014, worse than parent 7cb5e0fb0f54 and worse than best-so-far — the battery tilt plus added plate thickness pushed every scenario score up rather than down, suggesting the champion's near-zero battery wedge is already close to optimal. Worth testing next: revert the battery wedge to near zero and test the plate-thickness change in isolation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.166	134.5	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.838	163.1	38.3°
crosswind	3.697	157.1	33.4°
gusty_light	3.548	150.8	32.3°
hot_thin	3.377	143.5	27.4°
storm	4.615	196.0	30.0°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.6°
rear sweep	43.2°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.7 mm
battery wedge	1.3°
plate thickness	×0.87
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate b964270b85eb

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.018 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.6% better
scenario mean	3.709 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.618 Wh/km
frame mass	68.1 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 50 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two closely-matched parents (e7bb72f4bb57 at 6.019 and 5c40b0eddf3d at 6.021) tests whether their shared genetic neighborhood is already converged enough that recombination yields no new information.

methodGenes came out essentially identical to both parents, with no meaningful changes recorded.

resultFitness landed at 6.018, matching the parents almost exactly and confirming this region of the genome has flattened out. No improvement toward best-so-far, as expected from a near-duplicate crossover. Next: favor crossovers between more genetically distant parents to avoid wasting evaluation budget on redundant offspring like this one.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.168	134.6	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.842	163.2	38.1°
crosswind	3.695	157.0	33.2°
gusty_light	3.550	150.8	32.2°
hot_thin	3.379	143.6	27.4°
storm	4.618	196.2	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.4°
rear sweep	42.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.1 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.88
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate fd1ecec6c6e0

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.037 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.3% better
scenario mean	3.721 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.633 Wh/km
frame mass	68.4 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 53 via crossover

hypothesisA self-cross of plateau performer 934f4825ec4e, testing whether thickening the arm wall while shortening the deck gap could improve rigidity-per-weight near the plateau.

methodThickened the arm wall, shortened the deck gap by about a millimeter, and shrank plate length slightly.

resultFitness 6.037, worse than the parent and off best-so-far — every scenario score rose slightly, suggesting the shorter deck gap or thicker arm wall cost more in weight/drag than it returned in stiffness. Worth testing next: revert the deck gap and test the arm-thickness change alone, since deck-gap shrinkage hasn't shown gains anywhere this generation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.177	135.0	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.857	163.9	38.3°
crosswind	3.709	157.6	33.2°
gusty_light	3.562	151.3	32.3°
hot_thin	3.388	143.9	27.4°
storm	4.633	196.8	30.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.4°
rear sweep	42.5°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	38.8 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate d79b72915d80

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.053 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.1% better
scenario mean	3.730 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.646 Wh/km
frame mass	71.0 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 53 via pivot

hypothesisecf9c2cbfabb is a near-plateau performer paired with a notably weaker parent; the bet is that a thicker plate and heavier arm section, pulled from the weak parent, could add durability margin worth its weight cost.

methodThickened the plate noticeably, thinned the arm width slightly while fattening the arm waist, and thickened the arm wall.

resultFitness 6.053, worse than parent ecf9c2cbfabb and off the best-so-far — the combined plate and arm thickness increases added weight penalty across every scenario, especially storm. Worth testing next: thicken only the arm wall without touching plate thickness, to isolate which change carries more of the cost.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.180	135.1	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.869	164.4	38.3°
crosswind	3.719	158.0	33.3°
gusty_light	3.570	151.7	32.3°
hot_thin	3.394	144.2	27.4°
storm	4.646	197.4	29.8°

gene	value
arm length	×0.81
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.53
arm thickness	4.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.5°
rear sweep	42.6°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.1 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.95
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate a817f1dbe3db

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.054 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.1% better
scenario mean	3.731 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.646 Wh/km
frame mass	71.0 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 53 via crossover

hypothesisc6544c09af2a is a solid near-plateau performer while e44921a649f0 lags; this crossover bets that pulling in the weaker parent's thicker arm and narrower plate width might trade a little material for better wind resistance.

methodNarrowed the plate width slightly, thickened the arm wall, widened the arm, and fattened the arm waist.

resultFitness 6.054, worse than parent c6544c09af2a and off best-so-far — the combined arm thickening and widening again added weight penalty visible across every scenario, reinforcing that the champion lineage's thinner arm geometry is already close to optimal. Worth testing next: keep only the narrower plate width, dropping the arm changes, since that was the one trait moving in the lighter direction.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.184	135.3	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.867	164.3	38.3°
crosswind	3.721	158.1	33.3°
gusty_light	3.571	151.7	32.3°
hot_thin	3.397	144.3	27.4°
storm	4.646	197.4	30.0°

gene	value
arm length	×0.81
arm width	×0.86
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.3°
rear sweep	42.9°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	39.2 mm
battery wedge	0.7°
plate thickness	×0.87
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 5780394b9274✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.118 Wh/km
vs baseline	11.2% better
scenario mean	3.771 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.695 Wh/km
frame mass	79.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 53 via designer

hypothesisWith the population converged on composite arms at a fixed thickness, this designer submission bets that switching to a plain carbon-fiber plate with much less thickness could shed weight the evolutionary line hasn't tried.

methodKept arm dimensions matching the current plateau geometry but cut plate thickness dramatically and swapped the plate material from the composite blend to plain CF plate.

resultFitness 6.118, worse than best-so-far — every scenario score rose, meaning the thinner CF plate likely under-delivered on stiffness for its weight savings, or the material swap itself carries a penalty that offset the mass reduction. This is a useful negative data point on material substitution. Worth testing next: hold material fixed at the composite blend and test only the thinner plate thickness to separate the two effects.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.230	137.2	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.895	165.5	37.9°
crosswind	3.750	159.3	32.9°
gusty_light	3.609	153.3	32.1°
hot_thin	3.444	146.3	27.3°
storm	4.695	199.5	29.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.3°
rear sweep	42.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.0 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.60
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 609eb7d22ee4

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.147 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.7% better
scenario mean	3.789 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.718 Wh/km
frame mass	76.3 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 53 via pivot

hypothesisParent 934f4825ec4e sits right at the fitness plateau while the other parent lags well behind; this pivot bets that borrowing the weaker parent's beefier arm and plate proportions could add sturdiness without giving up the plateau's efficiency.

methodLengthened the arm further, widened the plate, thickened the plate, and fattened the arm waist — moving every dimension toward more material relative to the fitter parent.

resultLanded at 6.147, worse than both parents and well off the best-so-far — every scenario score rose, with storm at 4.72. Stacking four "more material" changes at once simply piled up weight/drag penalty without any stability payoff. Worth testing next: isolate just the arm-waist increase alone rather than combining it with plate and length changes.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.230	137.2	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.936	167.2	38.8°
crosswind	3.780	160.6	33.7°
gusty_light	3.624	153.9	32.6°
hot_thin	3.445	146.3	27.6°
storm	4.718	200.4	31.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.86
arm width	×0.86
arm waist	×0.64
arm thickness	4.7 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.3°
rear sweep	42.6°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	39.9 mm
battery wedge	0.7°
plate thickness	×0.90
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 8d850bc7ddca✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.624 Wh/km
vs baseline	3.8% better
scenario mean	4.079 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.091 Wh/km
frame mass	107.8 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 53 via designer

hypothesisAs a fresh, non-lineage exploration, this designer submission bets that reverting toward a heavier, oversized frame — bigger arms, fuller waist, thicker walls, tighter sweep — trades efficiency for structural margin that might pay off especially in storm conditions.

methodScaled the arm longer and much wider with a nearly full waist, thickened the arm wall well beyond the plateau norm, pulled both sweep angles tighter, and widened the deck gap.

resultFitness 6.624, dramatically worse than best-so-far across every scenario, with storm hitting 5.09 — the heavier build bought no weather-robustness advantage and instead paid a steep efficiency penalty everywhere. This strongly confirms the population's convergence on slim, swept, thin-wall geometry is the right basin rather than a local trap. Worth testing next: none of this design's traits merit pursuing further; future designer submissions should stay closer to the converged lightweight envelope and vary one axis at a time.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.441	146.2	25.8°
cold_headwind	4.296	182.5	40.4°
crosswind	4.080	173.3	35.0°
gusty_light	3.889	165.2	33.6°
hot_thin	3.676	156.2	28.1°
storm	5.091	216.3	37.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.05
arm width	×1.00
arm waist	×0.95
arm thickness	6.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	39.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	pa12_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate c310a2ff7746

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	5.997 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.9% better
scenario mean	3.696 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.602 Wh/km
frame mass	67.4 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 52 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the strong fdf4ad74657b (5.998) with the weaker 03f0edc82eda (6.196) bets that the fitter parent's genes will dominate while borrowing just enough from the weaker parent to escape a local plateau.

methodGenes came out nearly identical to the fitter parent, with plate thickness nudged up slightly and the material composition shifted marginally.

resultFitness of 5.997 essentially matches the fitter parent and comes within a hair of the best-so-far of 5.996 — a near-miss, not a new winner. The crossover mostly just re-expressed the stronger parent, confirming the weaker parent contributed little useful variation here. Worth trying a crossover that draws more heavily from the weaker parent's arm-width genes instead, in case a different feature transfers better.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.158	134.2	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.827	162.6	38.1°
crosswind	3.682	156.4	33.1°
gusty_light	3.539	150.3	32.2°
hot_thin	3.368	143.1	27.3°
storm	4.602	195.5	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.50
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.4°
rear sweep	42.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.1 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.88
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 934f4825ec4e

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.001 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.9% better
scenario mean	3.698 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.605 Wh/km
frame mass	66.2 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 52 via pivot

hypothesisParent 86d3e68d6154 sat just above the pack leaders; this pivot bets that trimming density in the material mix and slightly slimming the arms while opening the deck gap a touch can shave a little more weight without upsetting the accepted layout.

methodWidened the deck gap by about 0.8mm, shifted the material blend toward the lighter end, and trimmed arm width fractionally.

resultFitness improved to 6.001 from the parent's 6.006 — a small step forward — but it remains behind the best-so-far of 5.996, so it did not become the new champion. The gains track a slightly lighter material mix without any scenario blowing up, particularly storm holding at 4.60. Worth trying a similarly small material shift but paired with the winning arm-width trim seen in this generation's new champion.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.158	134.2	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.834	162.9	38.3°
crosswind	3.685	156.6	33.3°
gusty_light	3.540	150.4	32.3°
hot_thin	3.368	143.1	27.4°
storm	4.605	195.6	29.9°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.4°
rear sweep	42.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.8 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate a07a02cbf107

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.005 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.8% better
scenario mean	3.701 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.608 Wh/km
frame mass	66.3 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 52 via pivot

hypothesisSame parent lineage as the sibling pivot this generation; this near-clone bets that micro-adjustments within noise of the parent's genes might land in a slightly better local pocket.

methodEssentially unchanged genes — arm length, waist, and rear sweep nudged by a fraction of a percent each.

resultFitness of 6.005 nudges past the parent's 6.006 but still trails the best-so-far of 5.996. The near-identical genes produced a near-identical outcome, confirming this region of gene space is fairly flat. Worth abandoning fine noise-level tweaks here in favor of the bolder arm-width cut that produced this generation's new best-so-far.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.163	134.4	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.834	162.9	38.3°
crosswind	3.687	156.6	33.2°
gusty_light	3.543	150.5	32.3°
hot_thin	3.373	143.3	27.4°
storm	4.608	195.7	29.8°

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.4°
rear sweep	42.4°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.0 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate c6544c09af2a

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.009 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.7% better
scenario mean	3.705 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.609 Wh/km
frame mass	68.0 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 52 via pivot

hypothesisParent fdf4ad74657b was near the top of the pack; this pivot bets that pushing front sweep out and widening the arm waist trims drag more than the change hurts stiffness.

methodIncreased front sweep by about 2.2°, widened the arm waist trim, tripled the battery wedge angle, and nudged the material blend heavier.

resultFitness regressed to 6.009 from the parent's 5.998, missing the best-so-far of 5.996. Storm and crosswind both ticked up slightly, suggesting the added battery wedge and heavier material outweighed any aerodynamic benefit from the sweep change. Next worth testing the front-sweep change in isolation, without the wedge and material shifts riding along.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.169	134.6	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.829	162.6	38.2°
crosswind	3.697	157.1	33.3°
gusty_light	3.547	150.7	32.2°
hot_thin	3.379	143.5	27.4°
storm	4.609	195.8	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.54
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.6°
rear sweep	42.2°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.1 mm
battery wedge	0.6°
plate thickness	×0.87
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 80f7a38eec35

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.023 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.5% better
scenario mean	3.712 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.622 Wh/km
frame mass	67.3 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 52 via pivot

hypothesisParent 86d3e68d6154 was solid but not leading; this pivot bets that lengthening the plate and tightening the deck gap, combined with a lighter material choice, will offset the added arm length's weight cost.

methodStretched plate length by about 5%, lightened the material blend, lengthened the arms by roughly 4%, and closed the deck gap by 1.5mm.

resultFitness worsened to 6.023 from the parent's 6.006, falling further from the best-so-far of 5.996. Cold headwind rose noticeably (3.85), suggesting the longer arms and tighter deck gap increased drag or cost stability margin in that scenario. Next worth isolating the deck-gap tightening alone, since the arm-length and plate stretch may be the real cost drivers.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.167	134.5	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.847	163.5	38.3°
crosswind	3.702	157.3	33.4°
gusty_light	3.552	150.9	32.3°
hot_thin	3.379	143.5	27.4°
storm	4.622	196.4	29.8°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.62
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.3°
rear sweep	42.1°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	37.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate e44921a649f0✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.606 Wh/km
vs baseline	4.1% better
scenario mean	4.069 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.073 Wh/km
frame mass	111.2 g
material	pla_plus
born	generation 52 via designer

hypothesisThis designer submission bets that a moderately built-up arm structure with mid-range thickness and compromise sweep angles in pla_plus can find a distinct, competitive design region the evolutionary search hasn't converged toward.

methodA hand-specified genome with 6.5mm arm thickness, full-width arms, a wide 35mm deck gap, and pla_plus material, with front/rear sweep both kept in the low-to-mid 30s.

resultValid at 6.606, well behind the best-so-far of 5.996, with every scenario running noticeably heavier than the leaders — cold headwind and storm hit hardest at 4.25 and 5.07. The generous arm thickness and material choice likely cost more in weight than they bought in stiffness margin. Teaches that pla_plus can't compete with pa12_cf at this thickness; worth resubmitting a similar layout in pa12_cf with thickness pulled down toward the roughly 4mm range the leaders use.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.453	146.7	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.249	180.5	39.8°
crosswind	4.071	172.9	34.4°
gusty_light	3.886	165.1	33.1°
hot_thin	3.686	156.6	27.8°
storm	5.073	215.5	34.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×1.00
arm waist	×0.90
arm thickness	6.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	35.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	pla_plus

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 1633db9fe7be✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.942 Wh/km
vs baseline	0.8% worse
scenario mean	4.276 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.332 Wh/km
frame mass	122.9 g
material	asa
born	generation 52 via designer

hypothesisThis designer submission bets that pushing arm thickness and deck gap to their upper range in asa material, with a large battery wedge, might unlock a sturdier design that handles storm and headwind scenarios better than the slender converged pack.

methodA hand-specified genome with 8mm-thick arms (the thickest this generation), a wide 42mm deck gap, a steep 14° battery wedge, and asa material.

resultValid at 6.942, the weakest result of the generation and far off the best-so-far of 5.996 — storm reached 5.33 and cold headwind 4.54, both well above the leaders. The oversized arm thickness, wide deck gap, and steep battery wedge combined to add substantial weight without a compensating efficiency gain. Teaches that this generation's design space firmly favors slender, lightly-thicknessed arms over the sturdier asa-based approach; worth abandoning this general design direction in favor of exploring smaller perturbations around the current champion.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.603	153.1	26.0°
cold_headwind	4.538	192.8	40.8°
crosswind	4.276	181.7	35.6°
gusty_light	4.067	172.8	34.0°
hot_thin	3.838	163.1	28.4°
storm	5.332	226.5	39.3°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×1.10
arm waist	×0.90
arm thickness	8.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	42.0 mm
battery wedge	14.0°
plate thickness	×0.90
material	asa

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 0092f2d778a5

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.977 Wh/km
vs baseline	1.3% worse
scenario mean	4.299 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.354 Wh/km
frame mass	134.5 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 52 via immigrant

hypothesisThis immigrant bets that a heavier, high-thickness arm design in pet_cf material might trade weight for durability margin in a way the converged pa12_cf pack hasn't explored.

methodA fresh random genome with thick 7.3mm arms, wide arm width, a tight 29.3mm deck gap, a large 9.7° battery wedge, and pet_cf material.

resultValid but far behind, at 6.977 versus the best-so-far of 5.996 — no scenario came close to competitive, with storm at 5.35 and cold headwind at 4.52. The oversized arm thickness and aggressive battery wedge likely added too much mass and drag across every scenario. Teaches that pet_cf combined with this much material margin is simply too heavy to compete; worth retrying pet_cf with arm thickness closer to the converged 4mm range instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.651	155.1	25.9°
cold_headwind	4.516	191.8	40.2°
crosswind	4.295	182.5	34.9°
gusty_light	4.095	174.0	33.6°
hot_thin	3.886	165.1	28.1°
storm	5.354	227.5	36.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.12
arm width	×0.98
arm waist	×0.71
arm thickness	7.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	43.2°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.07
deck gap	29.3 mm
battery wedge	9.7°
plate thickness	×0.99
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate e9cc205ce9ad

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	65.3 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 52 via pivot

hypothesisParent dabcd494aadd underperformed at 6.018; this pivot bets that thinning the arms while widening them and shifting to a slightly denser material can rebalance the strength-to-weight tradeoff.

methodThinned arm thickness from 4.3mm to 3.9mm while widening arm width, widened the plate slightly, and increased the material density fraction.

resultInvalid — failed the arm tip deflection check under pa12_cf. Cutting thickness by nearly 10% while only widening arm width wasn't enough compensation; deflection margins in this material are tighter than the width gain could offset. Teaches that arm thickness below roughly 4mm in pa12_cf needs either shorter arms or a stiffer material to survive. Worth testing the same width increase but holding thickness at or above 4.3mm.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.82
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	3.9 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	38.1°
rear sweep	43.4°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	38.7 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.87
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate a825a8f60ed3

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	83.1 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 52 via pivot

hypothesisParent 8b0b576d82a5 itself never returned a valid fitness, so this pivot was already exploring shaky ground; it bets that thickening the plate slightly while trimming arm thickness marginally could pull the design back into a viable envelope.

methodIncreased plate thickness slightly, opened rear sweep by about a degree, and trimmed arm thickness by 0.2mm while lengthening arms marginally.

resultInvalid again — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf), the same failure mode as its invalid parent. The small thickness trim on already-long arms (over 1.1x baseline) wasn't survivable in this material. Confirms this whole branch — long arms paired with sub-5mm thickness in pa12_cf — is a dead end. Worth pruning this lineage and instead growing arm length only alongside thickness increases, not decreases.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.11
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.64
arm thickness	4.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.0°
rear sweep	42.9°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.9 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.92
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate f2714780b3c3

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pla_plus)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	96.2 g
material	pla_plus
born	generation 52 via immigrant

hypothesisWith the population converging tightly around the pa12_cf pivots, this immigrant bets that a fresh random genome exploring pla_plus material and a much larger front-sweep/battery-wedge combination might uncover an unrelated strong region of the design space.

methodA wholly new random genome with asymmetric front/rear sweep (48.6° vs 35.8°), a large 9° battery wedge, a tight 33.3mm deck gap, and pla_plus material.

resultInvalid — arm tip deflection (pla_plus). The aggressive sweep asymmetry combined with pla_plus's lower stiffness couldn't hold arm deflection in check. Teaches that pla_plus needs either much heavier arms or far more conservative sweep than this attempt used. Worth retrying pla_plus with thicker arms and sweep angles closer to the converged pa12_cf pack's roughly 36-43° range.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.02
arm width	×0.69
arm waist	×0.93
arm thickness	5.4 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	48.6°
rear sweep	35.8°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	33.3 mm
battery wedge	9.0°
plate thickness	×0.90
material	pla_plus

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 16f84df38246

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pet_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	73.3 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 52 via crossover

hypothesisSelf-crossing the top performer fdf4ad74657b with itself bets that reshuffling its own genes might land on a nearby improvement, effectively a wide mutation step around a proven design.

methodShifted the material blend substantially heavier (crossing into pet_cf), tightened the deck gap by over a millimeter, narrowed the arm waist, and thinned the plate.

resultInvalid — arm tip deflection (pet_cf). The combined narrower waist and thinner plate, layered onto a heavier material-boundary shift into pet_cf, pushed deflection past the limit. Teaches that self-crossover mutation steps need to be smaller when they cross a material boundary, since pet_cf apparently tolerates less waist/plate thinning than pa12_cf. Worth repeating this mutation direction but keeping the material fixed at pa12_cf.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.81
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.46
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.4°
rear sweep	42.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	37.8 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	pet_cf

parents

candidate 86d3e68d6154

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.006 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.8% better
scenario mean	3.702 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.608 Wh/km
frame mass	66.3 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 51 via pivot

hypothesisParent 07b4654d6ff5 (6.009) already sat right at the fitness plateau; this pivot is a fine probe to see if a near-identical restatement could nudge below the floor.

methodGenes left essentially unchanged from the parent, with only sub-percent adjustments.

resultFitness ticked down slightly to 6.006, a marginal gain over the parent but still just above best-so-far (5.995531) — not a new winner, confirming the plateau is tight. Worth testing next: a deliberate single-gene nudge (e.g. arm waist) rather than a near-duplicate restatement, to actually probe past the floor instead of resampling noise.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.164	134.4	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.835	162.9	38.3°
crosswind	3.687	156.7	33.2°
gusty_light	3.544	150.5	32.3°
hot_thin	3.373	143.3	27.4°
storm	4.608	195.8	29.9°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.3°
rear sweep	42.4°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.0 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 07b4654d6ff5

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.009 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.7% better
scenario mean	3.703 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.610 Wh/km
frame mass	66.4 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 50 via pivot

hypothesisParent e7bb72f4bb57 was structurally sound but not leading, so this pivot bets that trimming the plate further while nudging front sweep and the material blend can find efficiency headroom the parent left on the table.

methodThinned the plate about 9% further, opened front sweep by roughly a degree, pushed material blend slightly further from cf_plate, and shaved arm width marginally.

resultFitness improved to 6.009 from the parent's 6.019 -- a small but real gain, though still short of the best-so-far 5.996. It stayed valid despite the aggressive plate thinning, meaning there's still deflection margin left in this arm geometry. Worth testing: push plate thickness down further still while holding everything else fixed to find where the deflection wall actually is.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.164	134.4	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.838	163.0	38.3°
crosswind	3.689	156.7	33.2°
gusty_light	3.545	150.6	32.3°
hot_thin	3.374	143.3	27.4°
storm	4.610	195.9	29.9°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.3°
rear sweep	42.4°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.0 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate d147d836d586

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.013 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.7% better
scenario mean	3.705 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.615 Wh/km
frame mass	67.4 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 51 via crossover

hypothesisWith two solid but not-elite parents (750e6c91158d at 6.025 and e7bcf6e0d05f at 6.036), this crossover bets that recombining their genes lands on a fitter blend than either alone.

methodTook an intermediate arm waist (x0.55), a slightly longer plate (x1.03), a marginally later front sweep, and a hint of battery wedge (0.1°), blending traits from both parents.

resultFitness improved to 6.013, beating both parents (6.025 and 6.036) and landing close to the plateau, though still short of best-so-far (5.996). The recombination worked — it kept the leaner traits from each parent without inheriting either one's weakness. Worth testing next: cross this offspring with the elite ecf9c2cbfabb lineage to see if it can push past the plateau.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.162	134.3	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.843	163.2	38.3°
crosswind	3.693	156.9	33.3°
gusty_light	3.547	150.7	32.3°
hot_thin	3.373	143.3	27.4°
storm	4.615	196.1	29.8°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.6°
rear sweep	43.0°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	38.5 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.83
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate dabcd494aadd

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.018 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.6% better
scenario mean	3.709 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.617 Wh/km
frame mass	67.8 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 51 via pivot

hypothesisSame parent (8ae6b775fda3, 6.018) as the previous pivot, but this branch bets on a conservative restatement to confirm the parent's fitness reading is stable rather than noise.

methodGenes essentially unchanged from the parent.

resultFitness came back at exactly 6.018, matching the parent precisely — a useful sanity check but no improvement, and no new winner. Worth testing next: given how flat this local plateau is, perturb deck gap or plate width — the two genes both sibling pivots left untouched — to open a fresh search direction from this parent.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.171	134.7	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.841	163.2	38.3°
crosswind	3.696	157.0	33.2°
gusty_light	3.551	150.8	32.3°
hot_thin	3.381	143.6	27.4°
storm	4.617	196.1	29.7°

gene	value
arm length	×0.82
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	38.1°
rear sweep	42.4°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	39.1 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.88
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 3f2badcff637

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.081 Wh/km
vs baseline	11.7% better
scenario mean	3.748 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.667 Wh/km
frame mass	72.8 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 51 via mutation

hypothesisParent 07b4654d6ff5 (6.009) sits near the plateau; this mutation bets that a thicker arm buys structural margin that might enable further mass cuts elsewhere down the line.

methodArm thickness bumped from 4.3mm to 4.9mm and plate width slightly widened (x1.01→x1.03).

resultFitness worsened to 6.081 vs the 6.009 parent — the extra thickness cost more in mass/drag than it bought in margin. The candidate remains structurally valid but sits well above best-so-far (5.996). Worth testing next: since the parent was already valid at 4.3mm, try shaving thickness slightly below that instead, to find how close to the structural limit the elite arms can safely go.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.197	135.8	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.888	165.2	38.4°
crosswind	3.737	158.8	33.4°
gusty_light	3.586	152.4	32.4°
hot_thin	3.410	144.9	27.5°
storm	4.667	198.3	30.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.9 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.3°
rear sweep	42.4°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	39.0 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate fe07a6823ca4

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.090 Wh/km
vs baseline	11.6% better
scenario mean	3.753 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.674 Wh/km
frame mass	71.4 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 51 via pivot

hypothesisParent 8ae6b775fda3 (6.018) prompted a bet that lengthening the arm and thickening its waist would spread load better and lower drag in the windier scenarios.

methodArm length extended from x0.82 to x0.88, arm waist thickened from x0.56 to x0.64, deck gap widened to 40.3mm, front sweep opened to 39.1°.

resultFitness worsened to 6.09 vs the 6.018 parent, well above best-so-far (5.996). The longer, thicker arm simply added mass across every scenario with no compensating aerodynamic payoff. Worth testing next: isolate the front-sweep change alone, dropping the arm-length/waist growth, to see if sweep opening helps in isolation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.201	136.0	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.903	165.8	38.8°
crosswind	3.739	158.8	33.6°
gusty_light	3.589	152.5	32.6°
hot_thin	3.413	145.0	27.6°
storm	4.674	198.6	31.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.88
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.64
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	39.1°
rear sweep	42.7°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	40.3 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.88
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 03f0edc82eda

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.196 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.0% better
scenario mean	3.819 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.755 Wh/km
frame mass	87.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 51 via pivot

hypothesisParent 4acc247075c2 (6.218) was heavier than the elite cluster; this pivot bets that trimming plate thickness sheds mass without touching the rest of the layout.

methodPlate thickness cut from x0.84 to x0.76, front and rear sweep nudged up about 0.3–0.4°, arm length left unchanged.

resultFitness improved to 6.196, a real gain over the 6.218 parent, but still far above best-so-far (5.996) — this branch started from a weaker base than the elite lineage. Worth testing next: graft this thinner plate onto the elite arm-waist/deck-gap combination to see if the mass savings compound with the plateau design.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.271	138.9	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.944	167.6	37.9°
crosswind	3.798	161.4	33.0°
gusty_light	3.655	155.3	32.1°
hot_thin	3.488	148.2	27.3°
storm	4.755	202.0	29.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.51
arm thickness	4.4 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.5°
rear sweep	43.4°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.3 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.76
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate ebd3344c77d0

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.244 Wh/km
vs baseline	9.3% better
scenario mean	3.849 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.791 Wh/km
frame mass	84.4 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 51 via pivot

hypothesisParent e7bb72f4bb57 (6.019) was a mid-pack design; this pivot bets that a much beefier arm and slightly opened rear sweep would buy structural headroom worth trading for mass.

methodArm thickness jumped from 4.3mm to 5.7mm, plate thickness increased (thinner-to-thicker: x0.88→x0.97), rear sweep opened from 42.5° to 44.4°, plate slightly wider.

resultFitness rose to 6.244, well worse than the 6.019 parent and far from best-so-far (5.996) — not a winner. The extra arm and plate mass clearly outweighed any stiffness gain, hitting hardest in storm (4.79). Worth testing next: vary rear sweep alone while holding arm thickness near 4.3–44.5mm to isolate the aerodynamic effect from the mass penalty.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.282	139.4	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.998	169.9	38.6°
crosswind	3.843	163.3	33.6°
gusty_light	3.681	156.4	32.5°
hot_thin	3.499	148.7	27.5°
storm	4.791	203.5	31.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.82
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.59
arm thickness	5.7 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.4°
rear sweep	44.4°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	37.9 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.97
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 4981aebc08f0✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.484 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.8% better
scenario mean	3.994 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.980 Wh/km
frame mass	107.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 51 via designer

hypothesisA designer probe testing a more compact frame (shorter deck gap, tighter sweep) built in cf_plate instead of pa12_cf, betting the different material lets a thinner plate stay valid while a longer arm compensates.

methodHand-specified genome: arm length x1.20, narrow width x0.75, arm thickness 4.8mm, sweep pulled in to 33°/39°, deck gap tightened to 35.0mm, plate thickness cut to x0.70, material switched to cf_plate.

resultFitness landed at 6.484, well above best-so-far (5.996) and worse than most pivots/crossovers this generation. It stayed structurally valid this time, unlike its sibling designer candidate, but the compact deck gap and cf_plate combination carried a mass/drag penalty across every scenario. Worth testing next: keep cf_plate but move plate thickness and deck gap back toward the elite pa12_cf values, to isolate whether the material choice alone is worth pursuing.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.395	144.2	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.156	176.6	39.4°
crosswind	3.989	169.5	34.1°
gusty_light	3.817	162.1	32.8°
hot_thin	3.625	154.0	27.7°
storm	4.980	211.6	32.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.20
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.70
arm thickness	4.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	39.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	35.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate ec33a483fc3f✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.728 Wh/km
vs baseline	2.3% better
scenario mean	4.142 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.171 Wh/km
frame mass	116.1 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 51 via designer

hypothesisA designer probe exploring a wider, more swept frame in pet_cf material, betting extra plate area for stiffness plus steeper sweep would pay off in storm/crosswind robustness despite the mass cost.

methodHand-specified genome: arm length x1.05, width x0.95, thickness 5.5mm, sweep opened to 41°/48°, plate substantially enlarged (x1.22/x1.20), deck gap 36.0mm, pet_cf material.

resultFitness came in at 6.728, the second-worst valid candidate this generation and far above best-so-far (5.996). The oversized plate and steep sweep added drag and mass across all six scenarios without a compensating benefit, even in storm (5.17). Worth testing next: pair pet_cf material with elite-sized plate dimensions (x0.97–1.00) instead of the oversized plate, to separate the material's effect from the geometry penalty.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.500	148.7	25.8°
cold_headwind	4.364	185.4	40.6°
crosswind	4.135	175.7	35.2°
gusty_light	3.948	167.7	33.6°
hot_thin	3.736	158.7	28.1°
storm	5.171	219.7	37.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.05
arm width	×0.95
arm waist	×0.80
arm thickness	5.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	41.0°
rear sweep	48.0°
plate length	×1.22
plate width	×1.20
deck gap	36.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate c85fb3a7d14d

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.932 Wh/km
vs baseline	0.7% worse
scenario mean	4.270 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.324 Wh/km
frame mass	134.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 51 via immigrant

hypothesisWith the population converging tightly around the 6.0 plateau, this immigrant is a random-genesis probe testing whether an unrelated region of gene-space hides a better design.

methodFreshly generated genome unrelated to any parent: long narrow arms (x1.32 length, 2.7mm thickness), a swept-back rear (51.0°), an oversized thick plate (x1.29 length, x1.40 thickness), and a steep 11.5° battery wedge.

resultFitness landed at 6.932, far worse than best-so-far (5.996) and worse than nearly every other gen-51 candidate, hitting worst in storm (5.32). The thin arms plus oversized plate and aggressive wedge stacked mass and drag penalties across all six scenarios. This confirms the elite pivot/crossover lineage remains the strongest region explored. Worth testing next: seed future immigrants closer to the elite arm-thickness/plate-thickness band instead of fully random, so exploration budget isn't wasted this far from the plateau.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.634	154.4	25.8°
cold_headwind	4.480	190.3	40.7°
crosswind	4.252	180.6	35.5°
gusty_light	4.064	172.7	33.7°
hot_thin	3.867	164.3	28.1°
storm	5.324	226.2	37.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.32
arm width	×1.09
arm waist	×0.69
arm thickness	2.7 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.9°
rear sweep	51.0°
plate length	×1.29
plate width	×1.24
deck gap	38.2 mm
battery wedge	11.5°
plate thickness	×1.40
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 4d40f24cc6ad

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	64.1 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 51 via pivot

hypothesisParent ecf9c2cbfabb sits essentially at the fitness floor (5.996); this pivot bets that more deck gap plus a slimmer arm waist could shave further mass off an already razor-thin design.

methodDeck gap widened from 39.1mm to 40.9mm, arm waist narrowed from x0.50 to x0.43, material property shifted, battery wedge pitched up from 0.2° to 1.0°.

resultInvalid — arm tip deflection failure in pa12_cf. The narrower arm waist pushed the arm past its stiffness margin; this genome was already living at the structural limit, so any further material removal broke it. This teaches that x0.50 arm waist is close to the floor for this material at this thickness. Worth testing next: hold arm waist fixed at x0.50 and vary deck gap alone to capture that gain without touching the structural margin.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.81
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.43
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.3°
rear sweep	43.3°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	40.9 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.87
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 8b0b576d82a5✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	84.1 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 51 via designer

hypothesisA designer-authored genome testing whether a longer, narrower arm (favoring aerodynamics) combined with a thick 5.0mm cross-section could hold structurally while cutting drag.

methodHand-specified genome: arm length x1.10, arm width narrowed to x0.75, arm waist x0.65, arm thickness 5.0mm, sweep front/rear 35°/42°, plate left at x1.00/x1.00, deck gap 39.0mm, pa12_cf material.

resultInvalid — arm tip deflection in pa12_cf. Despite the relatively generous 5.0mm thickness, the narrower arm width (x0.75) combined with the longer arm length (x1.10) pushed bending stress past the limit — width matters as much as thickness for stiffness. This teaches that narrowing width below the elite ~x0.82–0.84 band is risky even with extra thickness. Worth testing next: keep arm length at x1.10 but restore arm width closer to x0.82–0.84 to see if the aerodynamic bet can survive structurally.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.10
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.65
arm thickness	5.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.0°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	39.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.88
material	pa12_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 8ae6b775fda3

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.018 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.6% better
scenario mean	3.709 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.617 Wh/km
frame mass	67.8 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 50 via pivot

hypothesisParent 6a56f2c2924b was mid-pack, so this pivot bets that widening front sweep noticeably while narrowing the plate and lengthening the arms slightly could unlock a better lift/drag balance.

methodOpened front sweep by nearly 3 degrees, narrowed plate width about 3%, lengthened arms about 2%, and pulled material blend slightly away from cf_plate.

resultFitness came in at 6.018, essentially flat versus the parent's 6.02 and still well behind best-so-far. The sweep and plate changes roughly canceled each other out across every scenario, none moving meaningfully. Next: isolate the front-sweep change alone against this same parent to see if it's actually neutral or being masked by the plate-width offset.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.171	134.7	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.841	163.2	38.3°
crosswind	3.696	157.0	33.2°
gusty_light	3.551	150.8	32.3°
hot_thin	3.381	143.6	27.4°
storm	4.617	196.1	29.7°

gene	value
arm length	×0.82
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	38.1°
rear sweep	42.4°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	39.1 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.88
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate e7bb72f4bb57new best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.019 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.6% better
scenario mean	3.710 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.619 Wh/km
frame mass	68.2 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 48 via crossover

hypothesisParents 6a56f2c2924b (6.02) and b52d9f62ec39 (6.043) bracket the current best; crossing two closely related, high-performing genomes bets that blending their slightly different plate-length and thickness choices lands in an even tighter local optimum than either parent alone.

methodBlended the two parents into a near-identical composite, the key change being plate length settling at x0.97 (between the parents' values) atop the shared thin-arm, 4.3 mm-thickness, pa12_cf recipe.

resultNEW WINNER — fitness 6.019, edging out the prior best-so-far of 6.0202 and both parents. The win is thin but consistent: nearly every scenario matches the tightest values seen this generation (storm 4.62, calm_warm 3.17), suggesting the crossover found a slightly better plate-length compromise than either parent alone. Next: hold this plate-length value and try trimming arm thickness by 0.1 mm to see if the deflection floor found in candidates 1 and 4 (~4.1-4.2 mm) still holds here.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.169	134.6	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.843	163.3	38.1°
crosswind	3.695	157.0	33.2°
gusty_light	3.551	150.9	32.2°
hot_thin	3.380	143.6	27.4°
storm	4.619	196.2	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.4°
rear sweep	42.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.1 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.88
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 6a56f2c2924bnew best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.020 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.6% better
scenario mean	3.710 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.620 Wh/km
frame mass	68.2 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 47 via mutation

hypothesisWith the champion lineage stuck at 6.023 for several generations, this mutation bet that trimming excess plate length while nudging arm thickness up slightly could shave dead weight without losing rigidity.

methodPlate length was shortened, plate thickness and arm thickness both bumped up marginally, and the material blend parameter nudged down within pa12_cf.

resultFitness came in at 6.02 — a NEW WINNER, edging past the prior best-so-far of 6.023 with improvement across every scenario. The shorter plate cut dead weight while the slightly thicker arm covered any rigidity loss, netting a small but real gain. Worth testing next: push plate length shorter still to see how far the trend holds before deflection limits kick in.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.170	134.7	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.844	163.3	38.1°
crosswind	3.696	157.0	33.2°
gusty_light	3.552	150.9	32.2°
hot_thin	3.381	143.6	27.4°
storm	4.620	196.3	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.4°
rear sweep	42.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.1 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.88
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 750e6c91158d

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.025 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.5% better
scenario mean	3.713 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.625 Wh/km
frame mass	68.1 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 50 via pivot

hypothesisParent c742abdca96a was a solid but non-leading design, so this pivot tests whether the parent's exact configuration is already near a local optimum by making only trivial changes.

methodKept genes essentially identical to the parent, with only negligible differences in the recorded values.

resultFitness landed at 6.025, a marginal improvement over the parent's 6.027 but still well off best-so-far. The near-null step confirms this branch has flattened out -- there's little to gain from micro-jitter here. Next: apply a larger, deliberate perturbation to one gene (e.g., arm waist or deck gap) rather than relying on incidental noise to escape this local plateau.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.166	134.5	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.850	163.6	38.4°
crosswind	3.702	157.3	33.4°
gusty_light	3.554	151.0	32.3°
hot_thin	3.379	143.5	27.4°
storm	4.625	196.5	29.9°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.5°
rear sweep	42.9°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	38.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.83
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate c742abdca96anew best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.027 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.5% better
scenario mean	3.714 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.627 Wh/km
frame mass	68.1 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 44 via pivot

hypothesisAiming to refine the reigning champion itself, betting that a small material-blend shift and length trim borrowed from a weaker frame could squeeze out further efficiency without giving up the champion's core geometry.

methodShortened arm length slightly from 81% to 78% of baseline, lengthened the plate marginally, nudged the material blend, and increased plate width a hair.

result6.027 — a NEW BEST-SO-FAR, edging out the prior champion's 6.035. Every scenario ticked down slightly rather than one dominating the gain, suggesting the shorter arm trims mass/drag fleet-wide without compromising structure. Worth pushing arm length shorter still to see how far this trend runs before deflection limits kick in.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.166	134.5	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.852	163.6	38.4°
crosswind	3.703	157.3	33.4°
gusty_light	3.554	151.0	32.3°
hot_thin	3.379	143.6	27.4°
storm	4.627	196.6	29.9°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.5°
rear sweep	42.9°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	38.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.83
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 5752a1dacc80

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.034 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.4% better
scenario mean	3.719 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.630 Wh/km
frame mass	67.4 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 50 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing 3ad4a4869388 (6.031) and a5369ef63a76 (6.074) bets that the better parent's structure dominates and a tiny waist adjustment inherited from the weaker parent won't drag it down.

methodKept nearly all genes matching the stronger parent, with only a 1% increase in arm waist as the sole meaningful change.

resultFitness came in at 6.034, essentially matching the stronger parent (6.031) and confirming the weaker parent contributed nothing useful here. Still well off best-so-far, with all six scenarios tracking the stronger parent closely. Next: when crossing a strong and a weak parent, favor picking up a distinguishing trait from the weak one (like its battery wedge or sweep) rather than a genetically trivial waist tweak.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.176	134.9	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.857	163.9	38.4°
crosswind	3.707	157.5	33.3°
gusty_light	3.560	151.2	32.3°
hot_thin	3.386	143.9	27.4°
storm	4.630	196.7	29.9°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.3°
rear sweep	43.0°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	39.3 mm
battery wedge	1.4°
plate thickness	×0.88
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate e7bcf6e0d05f

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.036 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.4% better
scenario mean	3.720 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.631 Wh/km
frame mass	68.7 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 50 via pivot

hypothesisParent e7bb72f4bb57 had a near-zero battery wedge, so this pivot bets that a more aggressive nose-down tilt could improve trim efficiency in headwind and storm scenarios.

methodIncreased battery wedge angle roughly sevenfold, thickened the plate slightly, and nudged arm waist and plate width by a percent or two.

resultFitness worsened to 6.036 from the parent's 6.019, moving further from best-so-far, with every scenario ticking up slightly rather than improving. The wedge bet didn't pay off, suggesting the near-zero tilt in the parent was already close to optimal rather than a missed opportunity. Next: test wedge angles in the 0.5-1.0 degree range rather than jumping straight to 1.5, to see if there's a smaller sweet spot being overshot here.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.177	135.0	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.853	163.7	38.2°
crosswind	3.712	157.7	33.3°
gusty_light	3.561	151.3	32.3°
hot_thin	3.388	143.9	27.4°
storm	4.631	196.7	29.8°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.5°
rear sweep	42.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	39.1 mm
battery wedge	1.5°
plate thickness	×0.89
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate da3b172ff23e

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.037 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.3% better
scenario mean	3.720 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.633 Wh/km
frame mass	68.7 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 50 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing 5119b060a79a (6.044) and 5c40b0eddf3d (6.021) bets that borrowing the stronger parent's rear sweep and plate proportions onto the weaker parent's base could split the difference favorably.

methodIncreased rear sweep by about 1.6 degrees toward the weaker parent's value, shortened plate length slightly, tightened arm waist a touch, and widened plate width about 1%.

resultFitness landed at 6.037 -- better than the 6.044 parent but worse than the 6.021 parent, so the crossover netted a middling result rather than combining the best of both. Still well short of best-so-far. Next: try holding rear sweep fixed at the stronger parent's value while only borrowing plate-width/length from the other parent, to isolate which trait is actually helping versus hurting.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.174	134.8	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.858	163.9	38.4°
crosswind	3.708	157.5	33.3°
gusty_light	3.561	151.3	32.3°
hot_thin	3.386	143.8	27.4°
storm	4.633	196.8	30.0°

gene	value
arm length	×0.82
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.5°
rear sweep	43.1°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	39.1 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.87
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 6d454bea2623

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.043 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.2% better
scenario mean	3.725 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.637 Wh/km
frame mass	69.1 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 50 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two mid-pack parents (5c40b0eddf3d at 6.021 and f174ca0454ae at 6.032) bets that blending their material and geometry choices, plus a tighter deck gap, could combine their respective strengths.

methodPulled material blend lower, lengthened the plate about 1% further, opened front sweep slightly, and tightened deck gap by roughly 0.3mm.

resultFitness came in at 6.043, worse than both parents and further from best-so-far. The recombination didn't inherit the better parent's strengths -- likely the deck-gap tightening and material shift interacted badly with the rest of the shared geometry. Next: try the same deck-gap tightening in isolation against the stronger parent alone to see if it's the culprit.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.180	135.1	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.859	164.0	38.4°
crosswind	3.717	157.9	33.4°
gusty_light	3.565	151.5	32.3°
hot_thin	3.391	144.1	27.4°
storm	4.637	197.0	30.0°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.8°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	38.8 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.86
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 4acc247075c2

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.218 Wh/km
vs baseline	9.7% better
scenario mean	3.832 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.772 Wh/km
frame mass	89.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 50 via pivot

hypothesisParent ecf9c2cbfabb was sitting essentially at the best-so-far mark, so this pivot bets that pushing the material choice further toward full carbon-fiber plate stock, alongside a thinner plate and slightly swept-back arms, could shave more weight without losing stiffness.

methodShifted the material blend from mid-range (pa12_cf territory) down into cf_plate, thinned the plate about 5% further, opened front sweep by under a degree, and trimmed plate length marginally.

resultFitness ballooned to 6.218, over 0.2 worse than the parent and far off the best-so-far of 5.996 -- every scenario got worse, storm hit 4.77, suggesting the cf_plate material carries a weight or manufacturing penalty that swamps any aerodynamic gain. This is a strong signal that crossing the material threshold into cf_plate is a dead end at this design point. Next: keep material in the pa12_cf band and isolate plate-thickness reduction alone to see how much of a plateau parent ecf9c2cbfabb still has left.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.282	139.4	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.956	168.0	37.9°
crosswind	3.813	162.0	33.0°
gusty_light	3.668	155.8	32.0°
hot_thin	3.501	148.7	27.3°
storm	4.772	202.7	29.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.52
arm thickness	4.4 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	43.0°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.0 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.84
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 428ea28fc738

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	67.2 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 50 via pivot

hypothesisStarting from the near-best parent ecf9c2cbfabb, this pivot assumed the genome had slack for a near-copy tweak to still land safely, testing how tight the margin around the current champion shape really is.

methodKept genes essentially unchanged from the parent, with only a marginal thickening of the plate and negligible sweep/waist adjustments.

resultInvalid -- failed arm tip deflection under pa12_cf, despite being almost gene-for-gene identical to a valid, near-best parent. That means the champion lineage is balanced right on the edge of the deflection constraint, where even noise-level perturbation can tip it over. Next: run a small grid of thickness/waist micro-steps around ecf9c2cbfabb to map exactly how much margin exists before committing to further thinning.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.49
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.4°
rear sweep	42.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.1 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.87
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate f0853b301bb5

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	81.6 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 50 via immigrant

hypothesisWith the population converging tightly around the pa12_cf mid-plateau, this immigrant injects a fully random genome to test whether an unrelated region of the design space -- long, pinched arms with a much wider plate -- holds untapped potential.

methodNo parents; drew a fresh random genome with notably longer, thinner, more pinched arms, a much wider but shorter plate, a tight deck gap, and a pronounced battery wedge.

resultInvalid -- failed arm tip deflection under pa12_cf, unsurprising given the combination of long, thin, heavily waisted arms. This reinforces that the converged population's arm proportions aren't an accident of drift but sit near a real structural boundary that random exploration keeps rediscovering. Next: if immigrants are meant to explore new territory, constrain the arm-thickness floor relative to arm length so random draws land in the valid region more often.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.26
arm width	×0.88
arm waist	×0.44
arm thickness	3.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	39.2°
rear sweep	39.4°
plate length	×0.91
plate width	×1.22
deck gap	33.1 mm
battery wedge	1.8°
plate thickness	×1.31
material	pa12_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate cf5fcbff7c1d

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	62.8 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 50 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing 6a56f2c2924b (6.02) and 3ad4a4869388 (6.031) bets that a noticeably thinner arm, borrowed from one parent's lineage, could shave more weight while the rest of the geometry stays in the proven mid-pack zone.

methodThinned arm thickness from about 4.3mm to 3.7mm, lengthened arms slightly, and nudged material blend and battery wedge marginally.

resultInvalid -- failed arm tip deflection under pa12_cf. This confirms the 4.2-4.3mm range seen across other valid candidates is close to the structural floor for this arm length and waist combination, and 3.7mm crosses it. Next: test intermediate thickness values (around 4.0mm) to pin down the exact deflection boundary for this arm geometry.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.82
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	3.7 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.4°
rear sweep	42.6°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.1 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.87
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 5c40b0eddf3d

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.021 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.6% better
scenario mean	3.711 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.620 Wh/km
frame mass	68.8 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 49 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing near-identical near-plateau parents 6f725a3a0f9c and 8a8504d81e28 is a fine-grained probe to see if micro-adjusting front sweep between their values finds a sliver of extra efficiency.

methodFront sweep nudged down a fraction of a degree, with all other genes matching the parents.

resultFitness came in at 6.021, essentially tied with both parents (6.02, 6.023) and just barely short of the 6.019 best-so-far, confirming this region of gene space is nearly flat around front sweep. The near-identical genes produced a near-identical result, so this axis alone looks exhausted. Worth pairing a front-sweep change like this with the arm-waist trim that won this generation, rather than testing it in isolation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.170	134.7	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.839	163.1	38.2°
crosswind	3.702	157.3	33.3°
gusty_light	3.553	151.0	32.3°
hot_thin	3.382	143.7	27.4°
storm	4.620	196.3	29.7°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.2°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.1 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.86
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 3ad4a4869388

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.031 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.4% better
scenario mean	3.717 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.627 Wh/km
frame mass	67.2 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 49 via pivot

hypothesisParent d8016daa4875 hovered near the plateau; this candidate bets a bigger battery wedge combined with a slightly slimmer arm can rebalance mass toward the tail without losing stiffness.

methodBattery wedge jumped from 0.2° to 1.4°, plate length grew to full scale, while arm width and thickness both shrank slightly.

resultCame in at 6.031, essentially flat versus the 6.028 parent and still behind the 6.019 best-so-far. The bigger wedge angle didn't translate into a visible efficiency gain, suggesting battery tilt has limited leverage once arm geometry is already lean. Next, try combining this arm slimming with a deck-gap cut instead of the wedge change.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.175	134.9	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.854	163.7	38.3°
crosswind	3.705	157.4	33.3°
gusty_light	3.558	151.2	32.3°
hot_thin	3.385	143.8	27.4°
storm	4.627	196.6	30.0°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.4°
rear sweep	43.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	39.2 mm
battery wedge	1.4°
plate thickness	×0.87
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate daa2eab07ed8

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.031 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.4% better
scenario mean	3.717 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.629 Wh/km
frame mass	68.2 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 49 via pivot

hypothesisParent de39ec574757 was already near-plateau; this pivot is a minimal probe to see if a tiny battery wedge nudge can find any residual gain.

methodBattery wedge nudged from 0.0° to 0.1°, with everything else held fixed.

resultFitness barely moved to 6.031 vs the 6.028 parent, a negligible regression, both still trailing the 6.019 best-so-far. This confirms battery wedge near zero is already close to a local optimum for this arm/plate configuration. Worth trying a much larger step instead of these fractional nudges to actually resolve the gradient.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.171	134.7	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.854	163.7	38.4°
crosswind	3.707	157.5	33.4°
gusty_light	3.557	151.1	32.4°
hot_thin	3.383	143.7	27.4°
storm	4.629	196.7	30.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.4°
rear sweep	42.9°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	38.5 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.84
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate f174ca0454ae

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.032 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.4% better
scenario mean	3.718 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.629 Wh/km
frame mass	68.8 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 49 via pivot

hypothesisParent 904776bc89c7 had settled near the plateau; this pivot tests whether tightening the deck gap and nudging battery wedge and material blend can shave a little more off the loss.

methodCut deck gap by roughly 3.6mm, increased arm length about 1%, doubled battery wedge to 0.6°, and shifted the material blend slightly.

resultLanded at 6.032, marginally worse than the 6.024 parent and still short of the 6.019 best-so-far. The combined tweaks look like a wash, with no scenario showing a clear win. Next worth isolating just the deck-gap cut without the battery-wedge and material changes to see if that alone helps.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.171	134.7	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.853	163.7	38.3°
crosswind	3.711	157.6	33.4°
gusty_light	3.559	151.2	32.3°
hot_thin	3.383	143.7	27.4°
storm	4.629	196.7	30.0°

gene	value
arm length	×0.81
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.4°
rear sweep	42.7°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	35.5 mm
battery wedge	0.6°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 5119b060a79a

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.044 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.2% better
scenario mean	3.725 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.639 Wh/km
frame mass	68.9 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 49 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing e7bb72f4bb57, the prior best, with c742abdca96a bets that blending their rear-sweep and arm-length traits can combine the best of both lineages.

methodRear sweep pulled back about 1° toward the shallower parent, arm length stretched slightly, plate length nudged up, and arm waist widened marginally.

resultFitness landed at 6.044, worse than both parents (6.019 and 6.027) and off the 6.019 best-so-far, a case where blending two good parents produced a worse offspring than either. The shallower rear sweep combined with the longer arm likely added weight without matching efficiency, canceling both parents' strengths. Worth retrying with rear sweep left at the fitter parent's value while keeping just the arm-length change.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.177	135.0	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.863	164.1	38.4°
crosswind	3.714	157.8	33.4°
gusty_light	3.565	151.5	32.3°
hot_thin	3.390	144.0	27.4°
storm	4.639	197.1	29.9°

gene	value
arm length	×0.82
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.4°
rear sweep	41.5°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.1 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.88
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate dcc508925b58

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.059 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.0% better
scenario mean	3.734 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.649 Wh/km
frame mass	70.7 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 49 via pivot

hypothesisParent a5369ef63a76 was underperforming the plateau; this pivot bets that a small thickness trim can recover some of that lost ground.

methodArm thickness trimmed from 4.5mm to 4.4mm, with plate length essentially unchanged.

resultFitness improved to 6.059 from the 6.074 parent, a real step in the right direction, but still well off the 6.019 best-so-far, so no new record. The thickness trim recovered efficiency without an apparent stiffness penalty, meaning this arm was likely over-built to begin with. Worth chaining another small thickness cut to see if the gain continues before deflection limits bite.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.190	135.5	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.866	164.3	38.4°
crosswind	3.725	158.2	33.4°
gusty_light	3.574	151.9	32.4°
hot_thin	3.402	144.5	27.4°
storm	4.649	197.5	30.0°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.62
arm thickness	4.4 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.4°
rear sweep	42.9°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	38.5 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.83
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate a5369ef63a76

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.074 Wh/km
vs baseline	11.8% better
scenario mean	3.744 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.661 Wh/km
frame mass	71.1 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 47 via pivot

hypothesisThe parent line sat right at the plateau (6.027) with storm consistently the worst scenario; this pivot bet that stiffening the arms a bit further and adding a slight battery tilt could buy back some storm-scenario margin.

methodArms went slightly thicker and wider, the waist taper was relaxed a touch, and a small 0.2° battery wedge was introduced.

resultFitness landed at 6.074, worse than both the 6.027 parent and the 6.023 best-so-far, with storm still the heaviest scenario at 4.66. The extra arm material simply added mass without a matching efficiency payoff. Worth testing next: keep the wedge but roll back the arm width/thickness changes to isolate whether the tilt alone helps.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.197	135.8	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.881	164.9	38.6°
crosswind	3.734	158.6	33.5°
gusty_light	3.583	152.2	32.5°
hot_thin	3.409	144.8	27.5°
storm	4.661	198.0	30.7°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.62
arm thickness	4.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.4°
rear sweep	42.9°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	38.5 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.83
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate f20c9e3f6a79

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.093 Wh/km
vs baseline	11.5% better
scenario mean	3.755 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.677 Wh/km
frame mass	73.9 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 49 via pivot

hypothesisParent e7bb72f4bb57 sat right at the current best-so-far mark; this pivot bets that a beefier arm (wider, thicker) with more front sweep and a taller deck gap can buy extra stiffness margin without much of an efficiency tax.

methodWidened the arm about 13% and thickened it by 0.4mm, kicked front sweep up nearly 3°, and raised the deck gap by roughly 1.2mm versus the parent.

resultFitness rose to 6.093, clearly worse than the 6.019 parent/best-so-far, with the storm scenario (4.68) hit hardest. The extra mass from the wider, thicker arm and taller deck likely outweighed any structural benefit, since none of the six scenarios improved. Worth testing the front-sweep change alone, without the thickness and width bump, to isolate its effect.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.202	136.0	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.899	165.6	38.6°
crosswind	3.744	159.1	33.5°
gusty_light	3.592	152.6	32.4°
hot_thin	3.416	145.1	27.5°
storm	4.677	198.7	30.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.82
arm width	×0.93
arm waist	×0.54
arm thickness	4.7 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	38.1°
rear sweep	42.7°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	40.3 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.88
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 83c3edff6103✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.402 Wh/km
vs baseline	7.0% better
scenario mean	3.943 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.918 Wh/km
frame mass	97.7 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 49 via designer

hypothesisWith the evolved lineage clustering tightly around a narrow arm waist and pa12_cf, this designer entry deliberately steps outside that basin, a stockier, more symmetric arm on pet_cf, to see if a structurally different family could open a new region of the fitness landscape.

methodBuilt from scratch with a thick 5mm arm near full length and width, a high arm waist (much less tapered than the evolved lineage), modest sweep angles, a tight deck gap, and pet_cf material.

resultFitness came in at 6.402, far behind the 6.019 best-so-far and worse across every scenario, especially storm (4.92). The heavy, barely-tapered arm and denser pet_cf combination simply carried too much unneeded mass for the stiffness it bought. This confirms the evolved lineage's aggressive waist taper is doing real work; next, a designer probe should keep pet_cf but adopt the evolved lineage's narrow waist to isolate whether material alone can compete.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.347	142.2	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.108	174.5	39.4°
crosswind	3.939	167.4	34.1°
gusty_light	3.768	160.1	32.9°
hot_thin	3.575	151.9	27.7°
storm	4.918	208.9	32.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×0.95
arm waist	×0.85
arm thickness	5.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	38.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.90
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate b5073af91061✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.688 Wh/km
vs baseline	2.9% better
scenario mean	4.120 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.136 Wh/km
frame mass	122.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 49 via designer

hypothesisThis designer entry bets that a much larger, swept-back frame with a stiff carbon plate could trade extra mass for enough structural benefit in adverse scenarios to justify itself.

methodBuilt from scratch with a longer arm, an aggressive 48° rear sweep, a substantially enlarged plate (about 28% longer, 18% wider), and switched to solid cf_plate material.

resultFitness came in at 6.688, the worst result this generation, badly trailing the 6.019 best-so-far across every scenario including storm at 5.14. The oversized plate and dense carbon-plate material added far more weight than the sweep and stiffness gains could offset. This strongly suggests plate size should track the evolved lineage's near-baseline scale rather than scaling up, so the next designer probe should keep plate dimensions modest while testing sweep angle changes in isolation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.511	149.2	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.285	182.0	39.7°
crosswind	4.114	174.8	34.6°
gusty_light	3.933	167.1	33.0°
hot_thin	3.744	159.1	27.7°
storm	5.136	218.2	33.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.05
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.75
arm thickness	5.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	48.0°
plate length	×1.28
plate width	×1.18
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 7e7c896afe6e

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pet_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	75.8 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 49 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing 904776bc89c7 and de39ec574757, both near-plateau parents, bets that blending toward a stiffer polymer (pet_cf) plus a touch more front sweep might unlock a new efficiency band.

methodMaterial blend shifted from 0.28 toward 0.36 (more pet_cf-like), and front sweep bumped about 1° versus the parents.

resultInvalid, killed by arm tip deflection under the pet_cf blend. This shows pet_cf's stiffness margin is thinner than pa12_cf at this arm geometry, so shifting the material blend without adding cross-section is a dead end. Worth re-testing this same sweep change on the current pa12_cf baseline instead, decoupled from the material shift.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.5°
rear sweep	42.3°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.0 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.87
material	pet_cf

parents

candidate 98d59d775c85✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (asa)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	90.0 g
material	asa
born	generation 49 via designer

hypothesisThis designer entry tests whether a thick, wide-armed frame on the lighter, cheaper asa material can pass structural checks by brute-forcing thickness rather than relying on the evolved lineage's slender taper.

methodBuilt from scratch with a longer, wider arm, a moderate arm waist, an unusually thick 5.8mm cross-section, modest sweep angles, and switched material to asa.

resultInvalid, killed by arm tip deflection even with asa's material change paired with the thickest arm section tried this generation. This shows asa's stiffness margin is too low to trust at this frame scale regardless of added thickness, ruling it out as a viable material for this arm geometry. Worth testing asa only on a much shorter, stiffer arm profile, or abandoning it in favor of pa12_cf variants.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.10
arm width	×1.05
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	5.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	40.0°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	asa

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 6f725a3a0f9c

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.020 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.6% better
scenario mean	3.711 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.619 Wh/km
frame mass	68.8 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 48 via pivot

hypothesisParent 8a8504d81e28 already sat essentially at the plateau (6.023); this pivot makes small, conservative tweaks to rear sweep and arm waist to probe whether a slightly different balance point could nudge below the current best without risking the tight deflection margin.

methodReduced rear sweep from 42.5° to 42.0° and trimmed arm waist very slightly (x0.56→x0.55); plate width and arm length carried over essentially unchanged.

resultLanded at 6.02, matching the parent almost exactly and not displacing the best-so-far (6.0202). Per-scenario numbers are nearly identical to the parent's, confirming this direction is flat on the fitness surface. Next: try a coordinated multi-gene change (sweep plus deck gap together) instead of isolated single-gene nudges.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.170	134.7	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.840	163.1	38.2°
crosswind	3.701	157.2	33.3°
gusty_light	3.553	150.9	32.3°
hot_thin	3.381	143.6	27.4°
storm	4.619	196.2	29.7°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.3°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.1 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 8a8504d81e28new best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.023 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.5% better
scenario mean	3.712 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.622 Wh/km
frame mass	68.7 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 46 via pivot

hypothesisParent 61844712d53e (6.035) was already competitive; the bet was that a slightly shallower front sweep paired with a marginally thinner plate could shave a touch more drag and mass without tripping the deflection limit.

methodReduced front sweep by about half a degree and thinned the plate slightly.

resultFitness improved to 6.023 — a NEW WINNER, edging out the prior best-so-far of 6.02317. The gain reads as a genuine refinement of an already-converged design: the shallower front sweep likely trims drag in headwind/crosswind while the thinner plate shed a sliver of mass. Worth testing next: push front sweep down another degree to see if the trend continues or reverses.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.170	134.7	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.843	163.3	38.3°
crosswind	3.701	157.2	33.3°
gusty_light	3.554	151.0	32.3°
hot_thin	3.382	143.7	27.4°
storm	4.622	196.4	29.7°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.3°
rear sweep	42.5°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.1 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 904776bc89c7

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.024 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.5% better
scenario mean	3.712 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.622 Wh/km
frame mass	68.5 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 46 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing 71bd5aa15020 (6.023, prior best-so-far) with c742abdca96a (6.027) was a bet that combining the champion's genes with a close competitor's rear sweep could squeeze out a further gain.

methodReduced rear sweep by about 0.2° with arm width essentially unchanged.

resultFitness came in at 6.024, matching the champion lineage almost exactly but not surpassing it or the generation's new leader 8a8504d81e28 (6.023) — confirming this design sits on a very flat, well-optimized plateau where rear sweep has little further leverage. Worth testing next: leave rear sweep alone here and instead try the front-sweep reduction that worked for 8a8504d81e28.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.170	134.7	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.844	163.3	38.2°
crosswind	3.702	157.3	33.4°
gusty_light	3.554	151.0	32.3°
hot_thin	3.382	143.7	27.4°
storm	4.622	196.4	29.7°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.4°
rear sweep	42.3°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.1 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.86
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate de39ec574757

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.028 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.5% better
scenario mean	3.714 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.627 Wh/km
frame mass	68.2 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 48 via pivot

hypothesisParent c742abdca96a (6.027) is another plateau-cluster member; this pivot is a near-duplicate probe checking whether its immediate neighborhood hides any untested improvement.

methodGenes are essentially unchanged from the parent — no meaningful shift in any dimension.

resultFitness 6.028, statistically identical to the parent and not a new best. This confirms the neighborhood around c742abdca96a is flat: reproducing the parent nearly exactly reproduces its fitness. Next: skip micro-pivots from this parent and try a larger jump (material swap or wider sweep) to escape the flat region.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.167	134.5	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.852	163.7	38.4°
crosswind	3.703	157.3	33.4°
gusty_light	3.555	151.0	32.3°
hot_thin	3.380	143.6	27.4°
storm	4.627	196.6	29.9°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.5°
rear sweep	42.9°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	38.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.83
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate d8016daa4875

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.028 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.5% better
scenario mean	3.715 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.625 Wh/km
frame mass	69.1 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 48 via crossover

hypothesisSharing parent 6a56f2c2924b (6.02) with the eventual winner, this cross with 1ba606180432 (6.026) bets that a slightly thicker arm and looser deck gap can trade a little weight for extra clearance margin without costing fitness.

methodThickened the arm from 4.3 mm to 4.4 mm and loosened deck gap from 39.1 mm to 39.4 mm, with arm waist and plate width carried over unchanged from the parents.

resultFitness 6.028 — worse than both parents and not a new best. The extra arm thickness and loosened deck gap added mass without buying enough margin to matter, landing back at plateau level. Next: the sibling crossover (e7bb72f4bb57) shows the actual win came from plate length, not arm thickness — retry this same parent pair without touching arm thickness.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.174	134.9	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.848	163.5	38.2°
crosswind	3.703	157.3	33.3°
gusty_light	3.557	151.1	32.3°
hot_thin	3.385	143.8	27.4°
storm	4.625	196.5	29.7°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.4 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.4°
rear sweep	42.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.4 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.88
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 61844712d53e

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.035 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.4% better
scenario mean	3.719 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.632 Wh/km
frame mass	68.6 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 44 via pivot

hypothesisA conservative refinement of the 6.04 cluster, tightening the deck gap and waist slightly to test convergence toward the optimum without the battery-wedge risk that sank a sibling candidate this generation.

methodTightened deck gap from 39.5mm to 39.0mm and reduced arm waist from 58% to 56%, leaving sweep angles essentially unchanged.

result6.035, matching the prior best-so-far almost exactly but not surpassing it, since sibling candidate c742abdca96a already claimed 6.027 earlier this generation. Confirms this gene neighborhood is a tight plateau clustered around 6.03–6.04. Worth combining this deck-gap trim with c742abdca96a's shorter arm length to see if the gains stack.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.172	134.7	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.858	163.9	38.3°
crosswind	3.708	157.5	33.3°
gusty_light	3.559	151.2	32.3°
hot_thin	3.384	143.8	27.4°
storm	4.632	196.8	29.9°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.9°
rear sweep	42.6°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.0 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.86
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate f947db579640✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.605 Wh/km
vs baseline	4.1% better
scenario mean	4.070 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.070 Wh/km
frame mass	119.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 48 via designer

hypothesisThe third Claude-authored seed bets on narrowing arm width and waist substantially while enlarging the plates, testing whether a slender-arm, broad-deck layout can approach the evolved lineage's efficiency even while still using stiffer cf_plate material.

methodNarrowed arm width to x0.65 and arm waist to x0.60 (much slimmer than the other seeds), kept arm length near baseline (x1.00), enlarged both plate dimensions (x1.20/x1.18), and kept cf_plate material with no battery wedge.

resultFitness 6.605 — the best of the three designer seeds this generation, closing some of the gap to best-so-far (6.02) but still well short of the evolved cluster. The narrower arm profile clearly helps relative to the other two seeds, supporting the evolved population's thin-arm bias, but the larger plates and cf_plate material still cost too much. Next: try this narrow-arm profile with pa12_cf material and evolved-scale plates to see how close it can get to the 6.02 plateau.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.470	147.4	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.216	179.1	38.8°
crosswind	4.067	172.8	33.9°
gusty_light	3.891	165.3	32.6°
hot_thin	3.703	157.3	27.6°
storm	5.070	215.4	31.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×0.65
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	5.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	38.0°
rear sweep	45.0°
plate length	×1.20
plate width	×1.18
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate b799a97f0f2e✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.936 Wh/km
vs baseline	0.7% worse
scenario mean	4.275 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.323 Wh/km
frame mass	138.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 48 via designer

hypothesisA second Claude-authored seed bets that a pronounced battery wedge can offset drag from a still-heavy cf_plate arm/plate combo, exploring whether battery placement is an underused lever.

methodSlightly smaller arms than the previous designer seed (length x0.95, width x0.90, thickness 6.5 mm) but with a strong 15° battery wedge, tighter sweep angles (32°/38°), and cf_plate material retained.

resultFitness 6.936 — better than the other designer seed but still far behind best-so-far (6.02) and the evolved population. The battery wedge didn't come close to compensating for the mass penalty of thick cf_plate arms, suggesting battery tilt is a second-order lever compared to arm mass and material. Next: graft a modest 2-5° battery wedge onto the evolved pa12_cf thin-arm design instead of a from-scratch cf_plate build, to isolate the wedge's effect cleanly.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.645	154.9	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.449	189.0	39.2°
crosswind	4.268	181.3	34.2°
gusty_light	4.079	173.3	32.9°
hot_thin	3.883	165.0	27.8°
storm	5.323	226.1	33.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.85
arm thickness	6.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	38.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.90
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 16000fb02854

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	7.103 Wh/km
vs baseline	3.1% worse
scenario mean	4.375 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.457 Wh/km
frame mass	142.3 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 48 via immigrant

hypothesisWith the population tightly converged on pa12_cf, thin arms, and roughly 35-43° sweeps, this immigrant injects a fully random genome to test whether a heavier, wider-envelope design in a different material (pet_cf) has been unfairly neglected by the search.

methodFresh random genome with notably longer/thicker arms (arm length x1.18, thickness 5.6 mm), much wider sweep angles (50.5°/43.0°), larger plates, a tighter 31 mm deck gap, a pronounced 4.7° battery wedge, and pet_cf material instead of pa12_cf.

resultFitness 7.103 — badly worse than best-so-far (6.02) and worse across every scenario, especially storm (5.46). The oversized arms and heavier pet_cf material add drag and mass that the fitness function punishes everywhere, confirming the converged pa12_cf thin-arm recipe is genuinely better rather than a search artifact. Next: if pet_cf is worth revisiting, pair it with the lineage's thin-arm, low-sweep geometry to isolate whether material or shape is the losing factor.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.706	157.4	26.0°
cold_headwind	4.632	196.8	41.3°
crosswind	4.355	185.0	35.7°
gusty_light	4.157	176.6	34.1°
hot_thin	3.942	167.5	28.4°
storm	5.457	231.8	40.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.18
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×1.17
arm thickness	5.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	50.5°
rear sweep	43.0°
plate length	×1.21
plate width	×1.13
deck gap	31.0 mm
battery wedge	4.7°
plate thickness	×1.23
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 79ec1e75661b✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	7.265 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.5% worse
scenario mean	4.470 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.589 Wh/km
frame mass	163.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 48 via designer

hypothesisAs a Claude-authored seed rather than an evolved pivot, this candidate bets on a structurally different philosophy — much longer, heavier arms with a tight deck gap and stiff cf_plate material — testing whether a build-it-strong, short-coupled design can compete with the population's thin-arm, high-sweep recipe.

methodLong, thick arms (arm length x1.30, thickness 6.2 mm) with a tight 30 mm deck gap, moderate sweep angles (34°/40°), and cf_plate material instead of the population's pa12_cf.

resultFitness 7.265 — the worst result this generation, well behind best-so-far (6.02) and losing on every scenario. The oversized arms and cf_plate combination add far more mass and drag than they buy in stiffness margin, so this design philosophy loses decisively to the evolved thin-arm lineage. Next: if testing cf_plate again, pair it with a much thinner, shorter arm profile closer to the evolved lineage, to see if material alone (not oversized geometry) is the limiting factor.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.776	160.4	25.8°
cold_headwind	4.709	200.1	40.8°
crosswind	4.460	189.5	35.2°
gusty_light	4.254	180.7	33.7°
hot_thin	4.033	171.4	28.1°
storm	5.589	237.4	38.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×1.05
arm waist	×1.00
arm thickness	6.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.0°
rear sweep	40.0°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 700988c2c55e

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	67.2 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 48 via pivot

hypothesisParent 61844712d53e sat at 6.035 in the crowded pa12_cf cluster; this pivot bets that trimming arm cross-section and shortening the arm slightly, plus tightening the deck gap, can shave more weight without breaking the deflection margin that's already tight in this lineage.

methodThinned the arm wall from 4.2 mm to 4.1 mm, shortened arm length (x0.80→x0.79), nudged arm width (x0.82→x0.83), and tightened deck gap from 39.0 mm to 38.8 mm.

resultInvalid — failed the arm tip deflection check under pa12_cf. This lineage is already flying close to the deflection ceiling, so shaving thickness by even a tenth of a millimeter on top of a length cut pushed it over. Next: test the length/deck-gap cut alone, holding arm thickness fixed, to see if that change survives on its own.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.8°
rear sweep	42.5°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	38.8 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.86
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 159ef4d9df74

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	64.3 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 48 via pivot

hypothesisAlso spawned from c742abdca96a (6.027), this pivot takes a bolder bet than its sibling de39ec574757 — shrinking the plate and thinning the arm together to cut mass, wagering pa12_cf still has stiffness headroom with a touch more front sweep to help load the shorter arm.

methodShrank plate length from x1.04 to x0.96, thinned arm thickness from 4.2 mm to 4.0 mm, tightened front sweep from 36.5° to 36.0°, and shifted the material blend ratio slightly within pa12_cf.

resultInvalid — failed arm tip deflection, the same failure mode as 700988c2c55e. Two independent pivots this generation both died once arm thickness dropped below roughly 4.1 mm, pointing to a hard floor near there for pa12_cf arms at this length/sweep. Next: hold arm thickness at 4.2 mm+ and test the plate-shrink idea in isolation to see if it banks weight savings on its own.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.61
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	43.2°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	38.9 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.83
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 71bd5aa15020new best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.023 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.5% better
scenario mean	3.712 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.622 Wh/km
frame mass	68.5 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 45 via pivot

hypothesisWith the parent pair sitting near the fitness floor, this pivot bets that fine-tuning the front sweep angle and battery tilt in small, opposing directions could trim the last bit of drag or thermal loss still left in the plateaued design.

methodReduced the front sweep by about half a degree, added a modest battery tilt where the parent was nearly flat, nudged the material mix up slightly, and shortened the plate length marginally.

resultFitness came in at 6.023 Wh/km — a NEW BEST-SO-FAR, beating the prior record of 6.027 and both parents. The shallower sweep plus slight battery cant likely improved the airflow/weight balance across the harsher scenarios just enough to tip the average down. Worth testing whether pushing the battery wedge a touch further compounds the gain or overshoots it.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.172	134.7	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.842	163.2	38.2°
crosswind	3.701	157.2	33.3°
gusty_light	3.554	151.0	32.3°
hot_thin	3.383	143.7	27.4°
storm	4.622	196.3	29.7°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.4°
rear sweep	42.5°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.1 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.86
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 1ba606180432

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.026 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.5% better
scenario mean	3.713 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.626 Wh/km
frame mass	68.1 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 47 via crossover

hypothesisThis was a self-cross of the 6.027 line, betting that recombination noise alone might shake loose a marginally better variant even without new genetic material.

methodGenes stayed nearly identical to the parent, with only minor jitter in deck gap and sweep angles.

resultFitness came in at 6.026, a tiny improvement over the 6.027 parent but still short of the 6.023 best-so-far. The near-zero movement confirms this branch is tightly converged with little variance left to exploit. Worth testing next: redirect search effort toward the better-performing 71bd5aa15020/8a8504d81e28 lineage instead of this one.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.166	134.5	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.850	163.6	38.4°
crosswind	3.702	157.3	33.4°
gusty_light	3.554	151.0	32.3°
hot_thin	3.379	143.5	27.4°
storm	4.626	196.5	29.8°

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.5°
rear sweep	42.9°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	38.4 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.83
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate d4e1af91bfb9

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.035 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.4% better
scenario mean	3.719 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.632 Wh/km
frame mass	68.4 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 47 via crossover

hypothesisTwo closely related near-champion lines (6.034 and 6.023) were converging on similar genes; the bet was that recombining their small differences might land on a slightly better blend between them.

methodCrossover blended the two nearly-identical parents, landing on shared values close to both (around 4.2mm arm thickness, 0.86x plate thickness).

resultFitness came in at 6.035, essentially matching the parents but not beating the 6.023 best-so-far. Crossing two near-identical parents produced a near-identical, marginally worse offspring, confirming this gene neighborhood is already well-explored. Worth testing next: cross this line against a more genetically distant parent to escape the local plateau.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.174	134.8	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.858	163.9	38.3°
crosswind	3.709	157.6	33.4°
gusty_light	3.560	151.2	32.3°
hot_thin	3.385	143.8	27.4°
storm	4.632	196.8	30.0°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.3°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.0 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.86
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate b52d9f62ec39

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.043 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.2% better
scenario mean	3.723 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.639 Wh/km
frame mass	69.4 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 46 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two closely matched parents (61b5e47c6d2c 6.043, 42b2f05c7846 6.035) was a bet that blending their near-identical genomes could nudge fitness down through recombination noise.

methodGenes came out nearly identical to the parents, effectively a near-clone with no significant changes.

resultFitness landed at 6.043, matching the weaker parent and not improving on the stronger one, so this crossover added no value, staying well off the 6.023 best-so-far. Worth testing next: since this pairing produces near-duplicate offspring, favor crossing more genetically distinct parents to get real recombination benefit.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.174	134.8	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.864	164.2	38.5°
crosswind	3.712	157.7	33.4°
gusty_light	3.563	151.4	32.4°
hot_thin	3.387	143.9	27.4°
storm	4.639	197.1	30.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.3°
rear sweep	43.1°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	39.9 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.87
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 74a1fc907eab

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.125 Wh/km
vs baseline	11.1% better
scenario mean	3.776 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.699 Wh/km
frame mass	76.4 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 47 via mutation

hypothesisFrom a stable 6.023 parent, this mutation bet that a substantial jump in arm thickness would buy extra margin in the roughest scenarios (storm, gusty) worth the added mass.

methodArm thickness was raised sharply from 4.3mm to 5.1mm, with nothing else changed.

resultFitness landed at 6.125, clearly worse than the 6.023 parent and best-so-far, with storm rising to 4.7 despite the reinforcement. The mass penalty from a ~20% thicker arm outweighed any stiffness benefit, showing this lineage was already near its thickness/stiffness sweet spot around 4.2-4.3mm. Worth testing next: try smaller increments (4.4-4.6mm) to locate exactly where the penalty starts outweighing the benefit.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.225	137.0	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.911	166.2	38.4°
crosswind	3.767	160.1	33.5°
gusty_light	3.613	153.5	32.4°
hot_thin	3.438	146.1	27.5°
storm	4.699	199.6	30.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	5.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.3°
rear sweep	42.5°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.1 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate a8ef7af2945a

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.615 Wh/km
vs baseline	3.9% better
scenario mean	4.079 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.073 Wh/km
frame mass	116.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 47 via pivot

hypothesisThis branch's cf_plate parent was lagging the main lineage by half a point (6.558 vs 6.023); the bet was that its unusually thin plate (0.60x) was an outright weakness worth fixing to close the gap.

methodPlate was thickened notably, arm waist tightened, plate width trimmed slightly, and a 0.7° battery wedge added.

resultFitness came in at 6.615, worse than even the weak 6.558 parent, with storm again the outlier at 5.07. Fixing the thin plate didn't help — this suggests cf_plate itself carries a stubborn mass/stiffness penalty that no single-gene fix resolves. Worth testing next: abandon whole-frame cf_plate pivots and instead cross individual genes (like the battery wedge) into the pa12_cf lineage to see if any survive independent of material.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.494	148.4	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.227	179.6	39.1°
crosswind	4.067	172.8	34.2°
gusty_light	3.895	165.5	32.7°
hot_thin	3.718	157.9	27.6°
storm	5.073	215.5	32.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	5.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	42.8°
rear sweep	37.4°
plate length	×1.24
plate width	×1.15
deck gap	40.1 mm
battery wedge	0.7°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate ba60c54f7292✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	7.180 Wh/km
vs baseline	4.3% worse
scenario mean	4.418 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.524 Wh/km
frame mass	151.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 47 via designer

hypothesisWith the population converging tightly around compact frames, the designer injected a deliberately larger, longer-armed design betting that a different aerodynamic regime — steeper sweep, bigger plates — might unlock gains the incremental search couldn't reach.

methodBuilt from scratch with notably longer arms, larger and wider plates, steep 40°/50° front/rear sweep, thick 5.5mm arms, and cf_plate material.

resultFitness came in at 7.18, far worse than the 6.023 best-so-far, with every scenario worse and storm hitting 5.52. The bigger frame simply carried more mass and drag with no compensating efficiency gain, confirming the population's convergence toward compact frames is well-founded rather than a local trap. Worth testing next: use individual genes from this design (like the rear sweep angle) as donor material crossed into the compact lineage rather than testing the whole frame at once.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.726	158.3	25.9°
cold_headwind	4.678	198.7	41.2°
crosswind	4.403	187.1	35.7°
gusty_light	4.203	178.5	34.0°
hot_thin	3.977	169.0	28.3°
storm	5.524	234.7	40.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.28
arm width	×0.95
arm waist	×0.85
arm thickness	5.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	40.0°
rear sweep	50.0°
plate length	×1.25
plate width	×1.20
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate a5cf497225ba

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	68.0 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 47 via pivot

hypothesisWorking from the reigning champion (6.023), this pivot bet that trading a tighter deck gap and thinner arm width for longer arms would improve prop clearance/aero without sacrificing structure.

methodDeck gap was pulled in, arms were lengthened, plate width widened, and arm width thinned relative to the parent.

resultInvalid: failed the arm tip deflection check under pa12_cf. Lengthening the arms while simultaneously thinning them pushed the cantilever past its stiffness limit — the two changes compound rather than offset. Worth testing next: lengthen arms alone, holding width fixed, or pair length growth with a wider waist instead of a thinner one.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.87
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	42.7°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	34.2 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.87
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate ad6e446454be

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	69.5 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 47 via pivot

hypothesisFrom the same 6.023 champion, this pivot bet that a thicker central plate could reinforce the frame enough to allow a more aggressive arm waist taper for extra weight savings.

methodArm waist was tapered further, plate thickness increased slightly, and deck gap/plate width nudged wider.

resultInvalid: failed arm tip deflection under pa12_cf. Plate thickness doesn't reinforce the arm tip, so the tighter taper broke the arm regardless — the waist was already near its structural floor for this material. Worth testing next: thicken the arm itself (not the plate) if pushing the waist taper further is the goal.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.81
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.52
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.7°
rear sweep	42.6°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.90
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 30ebf3478949✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (asa)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	84.9 g
material	asa
born	generation 47 via designer

hypothesisThe designer tried a different material (ASA) paired with a steep battery wedge, betting that a distinct material/tilt combination might reveal an efficiency regime the pa12_cf-dominated population hadn't found.

methodBuilt from scratch using ASA material, thick 5.8mm arms, a moderate-sized frame, and a steep 15° battery wedge tilt.

resultInvalid: failed arm tip deflection under ASA. Even at 5.8mm — thicker than any surviving pa12_cf design — the arms weren't stiff enough, showing ASA is markedly weaker per unit thickness than pa12_cf or cf_plate at this scale. Worth testing next: retry ASA with either much thicker arms (~7mm) or shorter arm length to see if the material can ever be made competitive.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.75
arm thickness	5.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.0°
rear sweep	40.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	42.0 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	asa

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 6a02fed62334

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.028 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.5% better
scenario mean	3.715 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.625 Wh/km
frame mass	68.6 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 46 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing 3a5ff38e7add (6.028) with c742abdca96a (6.027) was a bet that blending two similarly performing parents would land somewhere between or better.

methodGenes came out nearly identical to the parents, with only minor shifts in arm thickness and material blend.

resultFitness landed at 6.028, matching the weaker of the two parents and not improving past 6.027, let alone the 6.023 best-so-far — the near-identical genome suggests crossover contributed little new information here. Worth testing next: increase mutation strength on crossover offspring when parents are this genetically similar, to force more real exploration.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.172	134.7	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.846	163.4	38.3°
crosswind	3.709	157.6	33.4°
gusty_light	3.557	151.1	32.3°
hot_thin	3.383	143.7	27.4°
storm	4.625	196.5	29.7°

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.59
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.6°
rear sweep	42.9°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	37.3 mm
battery wedge	0.6°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 7a317ac952c1

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.034 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.4% better
scenario mean	3.718 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.631 Wh/km
frame mass	68.4 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 46 via pivot

hypothesisParent 61844712d53e (6.035) was already near the leading edge; the bet was a micro-tune of plate length and rear sweep to see if fine-grained geometry could squeeze out residual gains.

methodShrank plate length slightly and reduced rear sweep by roughly half a degree.

resultFitness ticked down to 6.034, a tiny improvement over the parent but not enough to beat the 6.023 best-so-far — the gain is basically noise, suggesting this lineage is near a local optimum for these two genes. Worth testing next: hold plate length and rear sweep fixed and instead perturb arm waist, which this branch hasn't touched.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.174	134.8	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.856	163.8	38.3°
crosswind	3.707	157.5	33.4°
gusty_light	3.559	151.2	32.3°
hot_thin	3.385	143.8	27.4°
storm	4.631	196.7	29.9°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.3°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.0 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.86
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 6c8683b6fc49

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.035 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.4% better
scenario mean	3.719 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.633 Wh/km
frame mass	69.0 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 46 via pivot

hypothesisParent 3a5ff38e7add (6.028) had a smaller front sweep and tighter deck gap; the bet was that opening both up, along with a touch more arm length and a leveled battery wedge, would improve airflow or leverage.

methodIncreased front sweep by about 1.4°, widened the deck gap by over a millimeter, lengthened the arm slightly, and zeroed the battery wedge.

resultFitness worsened to 6.035 from the parent's 6.028, so the combined opening-up move was a net loss, and it stays behind the 6.023 best-so-far. Worth testing next: try the battery-wedge zeroing alone, since the sweep and deck-gap increases are the more likely culprits for the regression.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.171	134.7	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.856	163.8	38.4°
crosswind	3.710	157.6	33.4°
gusty_light	3.559	151.2	32.3°
hot_thin	3.384	143.7	27.4°
storm	4.633	196.8	29.8°

gene	value
arm length	×0.82
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.0°
rear sweep	42.7°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	38.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 15b78cc30cfa

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.043 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.3% better
scenario mean	3.724 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.638 Wh/km
frame mass	68.3 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 46 via pivot

hypothesisParent 09912b78b48a (6.038) suggested the material blend and deck gap had room to tighten; the bet was that dialing down the composite ratio and closing the deck gap would trim weight without losing stiffness.

methodLowered the material blend fraction, closed the deck gap by about half a millimeter, shrank plate length slightly, and widened the arm marginally.

resultFitness landed at 6.043, essentially flat and a hair worse than the parent's 6.038, so the combined tweak didn't pay off, and it stays well shy of the 6.023 leader. Worth testing next: revert the material-blend change alone and re-test the deck-gap/plate-length tweak in isolation to see which gene actually hurt.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.175	134.9	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.865	164.2	38.4°
crosswind	3.712	157.7	33.4°
gusty_light	3.564	151.4	32.3°
hot_thin	3.387	143.9	27.4°
storm	4.638	197.0	30.0°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.6°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	38.9 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.86
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 75905616a199

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.050 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.2% better
scenario mean	3.729 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.641 Wh/km
frame mass	69.7 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 46 via crossover

hypothesisParent c742abdca96a (6.027) was solid; the bet was that adding a small battery tilt and thickening the plate slightly could improve balance during storm gusts.

methodIntroduced a small positive battery wedge, thickened the plate somewhat, and lengthened the arm slightly.

resultFitness worsened to 6.05 from the parent's 6.027, so the battery-tilt/plate-thickening combination was a regression, falling behind the 6.023 best-so-far. Worth testing next: try the plate-thickening change alone without the battery wedge tilt, since wedge tilts have repeatedly hurt fitness this generation (see fd2725122ea5, 6c8683b6fc49).

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.183	135.2	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.862	164.1	38.3°
crosswind	3.723	158.2	33.4°
gusty_light	3.569	151.6	32.3°
hot_thin	3.395	144.2	27.4°
storm	4.641	197.2	29.8°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.5°
rear sweep	42.9°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	38.5 mm
battery wedge	1.2°
plate thickness	×0.88
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate fd2725122ea5

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.052 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.1% better
scenario mean	3.729 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.645 Wh/km
frame mass	69.3 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 46 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two near-tied 6.035 parents was a bet that recombining their genes — especially battery wedge and material blend — could find a better combination than either alone.

methodAdded a small positive battery wedge tilt, lengthened the arm slightly, lowered the material blend, and nudged front sweep down slightly.

resultFitness came in at 6.052, worse than both 6.035 parents, so this recombination landed in a worse spot than either input — the battery-wedge tilt and material-blend shift seem to interact badly together even though each parent was fine alone. Worth testing next: recombine the same parents but hold battery wedge at 0° to isolate whether the tilt is the regression driver.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.180	135.1	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.872	164.5	38.5°
crosswind	3.719	158.0	33.5°
gusty_light	3.568	151.6	32.4°
hot_thin	3.392	144.1	27.5°
storm	4.645	197.3	30.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.84
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.9°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	38.7 mm
battery wedge	1.3°
plate thickness	×0.84
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 02ce52b15dc2

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.558 Wh/km
vs baseline	4.8% better
scenario mean	4.041 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.033 Wh/km
frame mass	109.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 46 via crossover

hypothesisParent a8588e061d40 (6.588) was a bulkier, wide-plate cf_plate design; the bet was that shaving plate thickness further could claw back some efficiency.

methodReduced plate thickness further from the parent's already-thinned value.

resultFitness improved modestly to 6.558 from 6.588, confirming thinner plate helps in this lineage, but it remains far from the 6.023 leader pack dominated by smaller-plate pa12_cf designs. Worth testing next: trim this lineage's oversized plate length/width toward the leader's proportions rather than just plate thickness.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.448	146.5	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.205	178.7	39.5°
crosswind	4.030	171.2	34.4°
gusty_light	3.858	163.9	33.0°
hot_thin	3.673	156.1	27.7°
storm	5.033	213.8	33.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.65
arm thickness	5.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	43.0°
rear sweep	38.0°
plate length	×1.25
plate width	×1.18
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.60
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 90659977d9fc

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.653 Wh/km
vs baseline	3.4% better
scenario mean	4.099 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.107 Wh/km
frame mass	114.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 46 via pivot

hypothesisParent f7d5fe1f41a0 (6.812) was a heavy, over-built cf_plate design with generous arm margin; the bet was that trimming arm mass and easing the battery tilt could recover efficiency without breaking anything.

methodReduced arm wall thickness, flattened the battery wedge angle slightly, shifted the material blend, and trimmed plate width a touch.

resultFitness improved to 6.653 from the parent's 6.812, validating the mass-trim direction, but it's still far off the 6.023 leader pack and didn't become best-so-far — storm (5.11) still dominates the cost. Worth testing next: keep cutting arm mass in this lineage, but check whether switching to the pa12_cf material the leaders use unlocks the next tier.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.494	148.4	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.277	181.7	39.7°
crosswind	4.085	173.5	34.3°
gusty_light	3.911	166.2	33.1°
hot_thin	3.723	158.2	27.8°
storm	5.107	217.0	34.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.99
arm width	×0.97
arm waist	×0.90
arm thickness	4.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.9°
rear sweep	35.9°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	43.0 mm
battery wedge	8.8°
plate thickness	×0.77
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b5875a4d1f70

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.936 Wh/km
vs baseline	0.7% worse
scenario mean	4.273 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.324 Wh/km
frame mass	144.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 46 via immigrant

hypothesisWith the population converging tightly around sweep- and plate-thickness-tuned pa12_cf designs, this immigrant was a bet to reintroduce genetic diversity via a stock-geometry, thick-arm cf_plate baseline in case the search had over-specialized.

methodFresh random genome: near-stock arm dimensions with a thick 6mm arm wall, shallower sweep angles, a much tighter deck gap, a small battery wedge, and cf_plate material.

resultFitness of 6.936 is far behind the 6.023 leader, confirming the converged pa12_cf lineage is genuinely superior rather than the search being stuck in a rut — the thick arm and tight deck gap cost too much in storm and cold (5.32, 4.42). Worth testing next: keep injecting immigrants occasionally for diversity, but bias them toward the pa12_cf material family so they at least start from the better base.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.651	155.1	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.424	187.9	39.3°
crosswind	4.265	181.2	34.1°
gusty_light	4.082	173.4	32.8°
hot_thin	3.894	165.4	27.6°
storm	5.324	226.2	32.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×1.00
arm waist	×1.00
arm thickness	6.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.4°
rear sweep	36.1°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	2.0°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 8fc464f12790

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	68.7 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 46 via pivot

hypothesisParent 518d114fa3e3 (6.048) looked like it was carrying more arm material than its stress margins strictly needed; the bet was to shave the arm cross-section and thicken the plate to compensate, chasing a lighter but still-stiff frame.

methodThinned the arm width and wall thickness while making the plate slightly thicker and marginally longer overall.

resultInvalid — arm tip deflection exceeded the pa12_cf limit, so the arm cut went too far even with the beefier plate. This shows the current pa12_cf arm cross-section is close to its structural floor at this length/sweep. Worth testing next: thin the plate instead of the arm, or keep the same arm cut but pair it with a stiffer arm material.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.86
arm width	×0.72
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.3°
rear sweep	41.8°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	39.6 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.95
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 3a5ff38e7add

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.028 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.5% better
scenario mean	3.715 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.625 Wh/km
frame mass	68.6 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 45 via pivot

hypothesisParent 42b2f05c7846 was already sitting right at the fitness plateau near 6.035; this pivot bets that trimming the deck gap slightly while adding a small battery tilt can shave a little more drag or mass off the design without inheriting the structural weakness of its much weaker co-parent.

methodShrank the deck gap by about a millimeter, tilted the battery from flat to a slight cant, eased the front sweep back less than a degree, and pulled the arm length in fractionally.

resultLanded at 6.028 Wh/km — essentially tying the incumbent best of 6.027 and edging past its stronger parent's 6.035, but not quite becoming the new record. The tiny deck-gap/wedge tweak got right up to the frontier without breaking through it. Worth testing a slightly larger battery wedge on the same shrunk deck gap to see if it tips over the edge next time.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.172	134.7	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.846	163.4	38.2°
crosswind	3.709	157.5	33.4°
gusty_light	3.557	151.1	32.3°
hot_thin	3.383	143.7	27.4°
storm	4.625	196.5	29.7°

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.59
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.6°
rear sweep	42.9°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	37.3 mm
battery wedge	0.6°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 42b2f05c7846new best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.035 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.4% better
scenario mean	3.719 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.633 Wh/km
frame mass	68.6 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 43 via crossover

hypothesisTwo tied-best lines were both sitting at the plateau; this crossover bets that blending their traits — rather than mutating either alone — could find a combination neither parent reached individually.

methodRear sweep set to 42.9° (steeper than either parent), deck gap trimmed to 38.6mm, plate thinned slightly to ×0.84, front sweep nudged to 36.4°.

result6.035 — a NEW WINNER, beating both parents (6.038, 6.051) and the prior best-so-far (6.038118742767061). The slightly steeper rear sweep paired with a marginally thinner plate appears to trim mass without eating into the arm-stiffness margin the parents relied on. Next: from this new champion, try nudging plate thickness even thinner to see how much deflection margin remains.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.171	134.7	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.859	163.9	38.3°
crosswind	3.708	157.5	33.4°
gusty_light	3.559	151.2	32.3°
hot_thin	3.384	143.8	27.4°
storm	4.633	196.8	29.8°

gene	value
arm length	×0.81
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.4°
rear sweep	42.9°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	38.6 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.84
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 09912b78b48a

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.038 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.3% better
scenario mean	3.720 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.635 Wh/km
frame mass	68.9 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 45 via crossover

hypothesisThis crossover pairs two nearly gene-identical plateaued parents, testing whether recombination alone, without new mutation, can nudge the design past the current local optimum.

methodProduced a genome barely distinguishable from its parents, with plate length rounding up slightly and deck gap settling near the higher parent's value.

resultFitness of 6.038 sits between the parents and short of the 6.027 best-so-far, confirming that crossing two nearly-identical designs just resamples the plateau. Worth crossing one of these plateaued parents with the new winner (71bd5aa15020) to inject the sweep/wedge tweak that actually helped.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.173	134.8	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.860	164.0	38.3°
crosswind	3.708	157.5	33.4°
gusty_light	3.561	151.3	32.3°
hot_thin	3.386	143.8	27.4°
storm	4.635	196.9	30.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.6°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.86
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 3314bc28a30d

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.039 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.3% better
scenario mean	3.721 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.635 Wh/km
frame mass	68.8 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 45 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two similarly-performing parents that share most of their genes, this crossover is a low-risk bet that simple recombination of near-identical designs might still find a bit more room on the plateau.

methodProduced a genome nearly identical to both parents, with sweep angles, deck gap, and plate thickness settling close to the fitter parent's values.

resultFitness of 6.039 landed between the two parents but did not beat the fitter one's 6.035 or the 6.027 best-so-far — crossing near-identical parents mostly re-samples the same local optimum instead of escaping it. Worth pairing genetically distinct parents next time to actually explore new combinations.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.174	134.9	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.861	164.0	38.3°
crosswind	3.710	157.6	33.4°
gusty_light	3.561	151.3	32.3°
hot_thin	3.386	143.9	27.4°
storm	4.635	196.9	29.9°

gene	value
arm length	×0.81
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.4°
rear sweep	42.9°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	38.6 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.84
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 61b5e47c6d2c

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.043 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.2% better
scenario mean	3.723 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.639 Wh/km
frame mass	69.4 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 43 via pivot

hypothesisFrom a tied-best parent, test whether steepening rear sweep further and shortening the arms slightly, with a small material-blend shift, could push past the current plateau.

methodRear sweep steepened to 43.1°, arm shortened to ×0.79, material blend shifted slightly (0.23 vs 0.25), deck gap nudged to 39.9mm.

result6.043 — close to but not beating its 6.038 parent or the best-so-far. The small regression suggests rear sweep is already near its optimum around 42°, and pushing it further gives diminishing or negative returns. Next: hold rear sweep near 42° and vary arm waist instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.174	134.8	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.864	164.2	38.5°
crosswind	3.711	157.7	33.4°
gusty_light	3.563	151.4	32.4°
hot_thin	3.387	143.9	27.4°
storm	4.639	197.1	30.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.3°
rear sweep	43.1°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	39.9 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.87
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 518d114fa3e3

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.048 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.2% better
scenario mean	3.727 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.642 Wh/km
frame mass	70.5 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 45 via pivot

hypothesisStarting from a parent stuck at 6.038, this pivot tests whether trading arm width for extra arm length redistributes mass toward efficiency, on the theory that a slimmer, longer arm cuts drag more than it costs in stiffness.

methodStretched the arm length about 6% while narrowing arm width a similar amount, thickened the arm wall slightly, and pinched the arm waist a touch further.

resultCame in at 6.048, worse than its 6.038 parent and off the 6.027 best-so-far — the length-for-width trade cost more in drag/mass than it saved in slimness. Worth testing a narrower arm width alone, holding length fixed, to isolate whether width was really the losing variable.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.180	135.1	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.864	164.2	38.3°
crosswind	3.718	158.0	33.4°
gusty_light	3.567	151.5	32.3°
hot_thin	3.393	144.1	27.4°
storm	4.642	197.2	29.8°

gene	value
arm length	×0.85
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	41.8°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	39.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.87
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 5ae77919c0f2

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.052 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.1% better
scenario mean	3.730 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.645 Wh/km
frame mass	69.3 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 45 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two close performers, this candidate tests whether adding a small battery tilt — absent in both parents — could push the blend below the fitter parent's fitness, probing a gene neither parent had tried.

methodKept arm length effectively unchanged from both parents but introduced a small battery wedge where both parents were flat.

resultFitness worsened to 6.052, underperforming both parents and the 6.027 best-so-far — the added wedge hurt in this particular sweep/deck-gap combination, unlike the smaller wedge that worked in the day's winning candidate. Worth testing a smaller wedge increment on this same base to see whether the effect is non-monotonic or this parent combination just can't tolerate tilt.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.180	135.1	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.870	164.4	38.5°
crosswind	3.721	158.1	33.5°
gusty_light	3.569	151.6	32.4°
hot_thin	3.393	144.1	27.5°
storm	4.645	197.3	30.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.3°
rear sweep	43.1°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	39.9 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.87
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate a8588e061d40✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.588 Wh/km
vs baseline	4.3% better
scenario mean	4.060 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.056 Wh/km
frame mass	111.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 45 via designer

hypothesisThis designer candidate tests a wide-sweep, wide-plate airframe with a thinned arm and no battery wedge, betting that shrinking the arm cross-section while enlarging the plate could unlock a different efficiency profile in cf_plate.

methodShrank arm length and width modestly, thinned the arm waist substantially, widened both sweep angles considerably, enlarged the plate length and width, removed the battery wedge, and thinned the plate significantly.

resultFitness of 6.588 — the best of this generation's three designer attempts but still far off the 6.027 best-so-far. The wide sweep and enlarged plate likely added enough drag and mass to offset the savings from the thinner arm and plate. Worth retesting this geometry with the plate size scaled back toward baseline to isolate whether sweep angle or plate size is the bigger cost.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.464	147.1	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.223	179.4	39.5°
crosswind	4.050	172.0	34.4°
gusty_light	3.876	164.7	32.9°
hot_thin	3.690	156.8	27.7°
storm	5.056	214.8	33.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.65
arm thickness	5.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	43.0°
rear sweep	38.0°
plate length	×1.25
plate width	×1.18
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate f7d5fe1f41a0✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.812 Wh/km
vs baseline	1.1% better
scenario mean	4.197 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.229 Wh/km
frame mass	127.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 45 via designer

hypothesisThis designer-authored candidate tests a deliberately different structural philosophy — a thick arm and steep battery wedge with a lighter cf_plate material — to see if it can compete with the evolved frontier's thin, refined designs.

methodSet a moderately thinned arm waist, a notably thick arm wall, a shallow sweep pair, a wide deck gap, a steep battery wedge, and switched material to cf_plate with reduced plate thickness.

resultFitness of 6.812, well behind the 6.027 best-so-far and the evolved population — the steep wedge and thick arm cost more in mass and drag than they gained in stiffness. Worth testing the same thickness/material combo with the wedge angle dialed back substantially.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.576	151.9	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.378	186.0	39.7°
crosswind	4.189	177.9	34.5°
gusty_light	4.004	170.1	33.1°
hot_thin	3.810	161.9	27.8°
storm	5.229	222.1	34.3°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×1.00
arm waist	×0.90
arm thickness	5.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.4°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	43.0 mm
battery wedge	10.0°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 047b92eacccd

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.985 Wh/km
vs baseline	1.4% worse
scenario mean	4.300 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.370 Wh/km
frame mass	127.6 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 45 via immigrant

hypothesisAs a pure random immigrant with no parents, this candidate exists to inject fresh diversity into a population plateaued near 6.03, testing a bulkier, more conservative structural region far from the current optimum.

methodGenerated from scratch with notably longer, wider, and much thicker arms, a wide front sweep, a longer plate, and a pronounced battery wedge.

resultFitness of 6.985, far worse than the 6.027 best-so-far and the refined frontier population — the oversized arms and steep sweep/wedge angles added far more mass and drag than the thin evolved designs carry. This is expected for an immigrant; its value is diversity, not immediate competitiveness — worth watching whether its thicker-arm genes get recombined into a future design that needs more stiffness margin, like the deflection failures seen this generation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.616	153.6	26.1°
cold_headwind	4.582	194.7	41.6°
crosswind	4.294	182.4	36.1°
gusty_light	4.085	173.5	34.3°
hot_thin	3.853	163.7	28.5°
storm	5.370	228.1	41.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.21
arm width	×1.11
arm waist	×0.80
arm thickness	6.4 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	43.0°
rear sweep	42.1°
plate length	×1.26
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	35.0 mm
battery wedge	2.1°
plate thickness	×0.95
material	pa12_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate ac0779e0c696

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	68.9 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 45 via pivot

hypothesisWith its parent plateaued around 6.038, this pivot pushes hard on thinning the arm waist, betting that a much slimmer arm neck could unlock further mass savings even at some structural risk.

methodCut the arm waist ratio sharply, about 15% thinner than the parent, while lengthening and widening the arm slightly and nudging the material mix.

resultInvalid — killed by arm tip deflection in the pa12_cf structural check. The waist was thinned too far for this arm length/thickness combination to stay within deflection limits, confirming there's a hard floor on waist thinning near here. Worth testing a waist cut half this size paired with a slightly thicker arm wall to buy back stiffness.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.82
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.49
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	42.2°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	39.7 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.86
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 3f00d90609eb

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	67.1 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 45 via pivot

hypothesisWith one parent (51a8976bd3a3) itself invalid, this pivot is a recovery attempt on the surviving lineage, testing whether a more moderate waist cut plus a longer deck gap and thinner plate could still find savings without breaking the arm.

methodReduced the arm waist ratio moderately, shortened the arm length, increased the deck gap for clearance, and thinned both the plate and the arm wall slightly.

resultAlso invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf). Even the gentler waist cut wasn't enough margin once arm thickness was reduced alongside it, reinforcing that waist and thickness need to move together rather than independently. Worth testing the same waist reduction while holding arm thickness at the parent's value.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.53
arm thickness	4.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.9°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	40.5 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 052b89f9a696✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (petg)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	111.0 g
material	petg
born	generation 45 via designer

hypothesisThis designer candidate probes an even steeper battery wedge alongside a lighter petg material, testing whether a thicker arm can let a cheaper polymer tolerate a steep tilt.

methodKept a thick arm with a slightly thinner waist, matched deck gap and sweep to the sibling designer candidate, but pushed the battery wedge much steeper and switched material to petg.

resultInvalid — arm tip deflection (petg). Petg's lower stiffness couldn't handle the steep wedge and thinned waist even with the thicker arm wall, showing petg needs either a thicker arm or a shallower wedge here. Worth retrying petg with the wedge cut roughly in half.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×1.00
arm waist	×0.85
arm thickness	6.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.4°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	43.0 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	petg

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate ef6352398ebcnew best when evaluated✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.038 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.3% better
scenario mean	3.721 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.635 Wh/km
frame mass	68.8 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 42 via designer

hypothesisSplitting the difference between dbcbc5511a2c's thicker-arm bet and 95e920477f01's thinner-plate/cf_plate bet, the designer tried a middle-ground arm thickness with the champion's proven pa12_cf and plate thickness, targeting the sweet spot neither extreme found.

methodFresh design: arm waist x0.58, arm thickness set to 4.2mm (between the 3.8mm and 4.6mm siblings), plate thickness kept at x0.86, and material kept as pa12_cf.

resultNEW WINNER at 6.038, tying the crossover-derived 457bb2ac5e47 for best-so-far this generation and beating both designer siblings (6.048 and 6.104) as well as the 6.045 prior best. Two independent lineages — a crossover sweep tweak and a hand-designed arm-thickness pick — converging on the same 6.038 fitness is a strong signal this region (4.2mm arm thickness, x0.58 waist, tight rear sweep, pa12_cf) is a genuine local optimum. Worth probing arm thickness at 4.0mm and 4.4mm around this point to map the curvature and check if 4.2mm is truly the minimum.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.174	134.8	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.861	164.0	38.4°
crosswind	3.707	157.5	33.4°
gusty_light	3.561	151.3	32.4°
hot_thin	3.386	143.9	27.4°
storm	4.635	196.9	30.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.1°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	39.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.86
material	pa12_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate e94bc83e5e97

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.038 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.3% better
scenario mean	3.721 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.635 Wh/km
frame mass	68.8 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 44 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the reigning champion with its closest rival (fitness gap of only 0.003) to check whether there's exploitable slack between the two nearly-identical optima.

methodGenes came out essentially identical to both parents, with rear sweep splitting the small difference between them.

result6.038 — flat versus both parents, confirming they already occupy the same optimum basin with nothing left to harvest by blending. Teaches that another crossover here won't move the needle. Worth applying a larger mutation step (e.g. a bigger arm-length or material jump) to try to escape this basin instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.174	134.8	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.861	164.0	38.4°
crosswind	3.707	157.5	33.4°
gusty_light	3.561	151.3	32.3°
hot_thin	3.386	143.9	27.4°
storm	4.635	196.9	30.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.9°
rear sweep	42.1°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	39.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.86
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 04d2b411edf2

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.039 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.3% better
scenario mean	3.721 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.636 Wh/km
frame mass	68.8 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 44 via pivot

hypothesisSitting near the tight 6.04 cluster, this pivot bets that a broad but tiny simultaneous nudge across many genes can inch the design closer to the champion optimum.

methodNear-identical to its better parent, with only marginal adjustments to arm width, waist, deck gap and sweep angles.

resultCame in at 6.039, a hair better than its 6.042 parent but not enough to beat the 6.035 best-so-far. Every scenario improved by a whisker, suggesting this neighborhood is a shallow, flattening plateau. Worth trying a sharper single-gene perturbation (e.g. arm length) instead of another all-over nudge to escape the plateau.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.173	134.8	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.862	164.0	38.3°
crosswind	3.709	157.6	33.4°
gusty_light	3.562	151.3	32.3°
hot_thin	3.386	143.8	27.4°
storm	4.636	196.9	30.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.6°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.86
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 8509768926ba

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.044 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.2% better
scenario mean	3.725 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.639 Wh/km
frame mass	69.9 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 44 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two near-twin frames from the 6.04 class, betting that a small arm thickness bump adds robustness margin without much fitness cost.

methodIncreased arm thickness from 4.2mm to 4.3mm, inheriting the rest as a blend of the two near-identical parents.

result6.044 — landed between the parents but slightly worse than the stronger one (6.038), meaning the extra thickness added mass without any measurable robustness payoff. Teaches that in this cluster, thickness margin is already saturated. Worth reverting the thickness bump and instead varying rear sweep, which hasn't moved in this sub-lineage.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.179	135.1	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.858	163.9	38.4°
crosswind	3.716	157.9	33.4°
gusty_light	3.566	151.5	32.3°
hot_thin	3.392	144.1	27.4°
storm	4.639	197.1	29.7°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	41.9°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	39.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.86
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 0410a3f940ac

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.085 Wh/km
vs baseline	11.6% better
scenario mean	3.750 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.669 Wh/km
frame mass	72.2 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 44 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two equally-fit 6.038 frames on the bet that recombination might uncover a better combination hidden between them.

methodLengthened the plate from 103% to 106%, tightened the deck gap from 39.5mm to 38.2mm, thickened the arm to 4.5mm, and narrowed arm width from 82% to 79%.

result6.085 — worse than both parents across every scenario. The combination of plate lengthening, deck-gap tightening, arm thickening and width narrowing stacked penalties instead of benefits, showing these genes interact non-additively rather than independently. Worth testing each of plate length, deck gap and arm thickness as isolated single-gene changes instead of bundling them.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.199	135.9	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.890	165.3	38.4°
crosswind	3.743	159.0	33.5°
gusty_light	3.588	152.4	32.4°
hot_thin	3.411	144.9	27.5°
storm	4.669	198.4	30.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.1°
plate length	×1.06
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	38.2 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.88
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 701835eba026

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.119 Wh/km
vs baseline	11.1% better
scenario mean	3.771 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.696 Wh/km
frame mass	74.4 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 44 via crossover

hypothesisSelf-crossing a heavier, thicker-armed frame (4.9mm) to test whether small rear-sweep and plate-thickness jitter can nudge this branch down toward the leading 6.03 cluster.

methodNudged rear sweep from 40.4° to 40.6° and thinned plate thickness slightly from 81% to 80%.

result6.119 — essentially unchanged, slightly worse than its 6.117 parent. Confirms this thicker-arm lineage is capped well above the 6.03 leaders; the extra arm mass this branch carries isn't earning its keep in any scenario. Worth crossing this line directly with the champion to inherit its slimmer arm dimensions while keeping whatever else differentiates it.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.212	136.4	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.920	166.5	38.7°
crosswind	3.764	159.9	33.6°
gusty_light	3.607	153.2	32.5°
hot_thin	3.426	145.6	27.5°
storm	4.696	199.5	31.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.84
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.59
arm thickness	4.9 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.4°
rear sweep	40.6°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	38.8 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 2c48ce70cf6a

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.323 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.2% better
scenario mean	3.895 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.856 Wh/km
frame mass	93.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 44 via pivot

hypothesisBoth parents sat well behind the pa12_cf front-runners clustered near 6.04, so this cf_plate pivot bets that thickening the plate while slimming the arm waist further can claw back some of that gap without abandoning the cf_plate material line.

methodThickened the plate from 65% to 79% of baseline, narrowed the arm waist further to 53%, trimmed plate length slightly, and widened arm width a touch to 73%.

resultLanded at 6.323 — better than the weaker parent (7.598) but still well short of the stronger parent (6.243) and nowhere near the 6.035 best-so-far, dragged down mainly by a heavy storm cost (4.86). This confirms the cf_plate branch is structurally capable but not competitive with the pa12_cf lineage at comparable dimensions. Worth testing this same thickness/waist combo rebuilt in pa12_cf to isolate whether material or geometry is the bottleneck.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.316	140.9	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.051	172.1	39.0°
crosswind	3.885	165.1	33.8°
gusty_light	3.725	158.2	32.6°
hot_thin	3.540	150.4	27.6°
storm	4.856	206.3	31.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.20
arm width	×0.73
arm waist	×0.53
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.0°
rear sweep	40.0°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	35.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.79
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 72423ad99024✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.613 Wh/km
vs baseline	4.0% better
scenario mean	4.077 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.071 Wh/km
frame mass	111.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 44 via designer

hypothesisAn aggressive designer bet pairing a slim arm cross-section with a steep 15° battery wedge tilt in cf_plate, testing whether shifting the battery's center of gravity can compensate for reduced arm material.

methodBuilt from scratch with narrowed arm width and waist (60%), a thick 6mm arm, the largest battery wedge tested this generation (15°), a wide 42mm deck gap, and a thin cf_plate (60% thickness).

result6.613 — the best of the three designer entries this generation but still far off the 6.035 best-so-far, with storm (5.07) again the dominant cost. Teaches that even a steep battery wedge can't overcome the mass penalty of cf_plate paired with a thin arm. Worth rebuilding this narrow-arm, wide-deck-gap geometry in pa12_cf to see if the champion's material carries it better.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.472	147.5	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.252	180.6	39.2°
crosswind	4.077	173.2	34.2°
gusty_light	3.892	165.4	33.0°
hot_thin	3.697	157.1	27.8°
storm	5.071	215.4	33.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.10
arm width	×0.60
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	6.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.4°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	42.0 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.60
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 044e16447b73✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.671 Wh/km
vs baseline	3.1% better
scenario mean	4.109 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.124 Wh/km
frame mass	114.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 44 via designer

hypothesisA fresh designer proposal hedging toward a sturdier, thicker-armed cf_plate frame with a pronounced battery wedge tilt, testing whether extra structural margin pays off in the harsher scenarios where the pa12_cf lineage has been plateauing.

methodBuilt from scratch with a longer arm (122% of baseline), thicker arm (4.8mm), wider waist (75%), an 8° battery wedge, and a thin cf_plate (65% thickness).

result6.671 — far from the 6.035 best-so-far and worse than the entire pa12_cf cluster, with storm (5.12) the heaviest single cost. Teaches that battery wedge tilt combined with cf_plate doesn't pay off at this scale — the extra mass outweighs any stiffness or CoG benefit. Worth rebuilding this same arm geometry in pa12_cf to isolate whether the shortfall is material or geometry.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.483	148.0	25.8°
cold_headwind	4.315	183.3	40.2°
crosswind	4.098	174.1	34.7°
gusty_light	3.917	166.4	33.4°
hot_thin	3.715	157.8	28.0°
storm	5.124	217.7	36.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.22
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.75
arm thickness	4.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	41.0 mm
battery wedge	8.0°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 5bc6b43ed5d9✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.867 Wh/km
vs baseline	0.3% better
scenario mean	4.229 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.277 Wh/km
frame mass	125.2 g
material	asa
born	generation 44 via designer

hypothesisAn extreme-opposite designer bet: a heavily over-built ASA frame testing whether raw stiffness margin from a very thick arm and wide waist can offset ASA's weaker stiffness-to-weight ratio versus the composite materials the champion lineage uses.

methodBuilt from scratch with near-baseline plate dimensions but a very thick arm (7.5mm) and widened waist (110%), in ASA plastic instead of a carbon composite.

result6.867 — the worst result of the generation, with every scenario elevated (storm 5.28). Confirms ASA overbuilt frames simply carry too much mass penalty to compete regardless of added thickness. Teaches this material is not worth further exploration at this scale. Worth retiring ASA from the designer's material palette and reallocating that budget to pa12_cf/cf_plate refinements.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.567	151.5	25.9°
cold_headwind	4.460	189.5	40.6°
crosswind	4.232	179.8	35.3°
gusty_light	4.028	171.1	33.7°
hot_thin	3.807	161.7	28.2°
storm	5.277	224.2	38.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×1.10
arm waist	×1.10
arm thickness	7.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.4°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	35.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.10
material	asa

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 51a8976bd3a3

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	68.8 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 44 via pivot

hypothesisBetting that borrowing a steeper rear sweep and a touch of battery wedge tilt from a weaker parent could extract more efficiency from the solid 6.038 lineage.

methodIncreased rear sweep from 42.1° to 43.0°, introduced a small 0.4° battery wedge, and nudged arm length and width up slightly.

resultInvalid — killed by arm tip deflection in pa12_cf. The added wedge and sweep evidently increased loading on the arm beyond what the existing wall thickness could handle. Teaches that battery wedge tilt in this lineage needs to be paired with more arm thickness or a shorter arm, not just added on top of an existing sweep increase. Worth retrying the same wedge with arm thickness bumped instead of left unchanged.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.81
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.9°
rear sweep	43.0°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	39.6 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.88
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 0ec4f7c1534b

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	68.2 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 44 via pivot

hypothesisTesting whether widening the deck gap and adding battery wedge tilt — borrowed from a much weaker parent — could improve storm/crosswind handling by repositioning mass, at the cost of a narrower arm.

methodNarrowed arm width from 82% to 69%, widened deck gap from 39.5mm to 42.3mm, added a 1.5° battery wedge, and widened the arm waist from 58% to 65%.

resultInvalid — arm tip deflection in pa12_cf. Widening the deck gap lengthens the load moment arm, and narrowing the arm width at the same time removed the material needed to carry it. Teaches that deck-gap increases require arms to stay wide or thick, not narrower. Worth retrying the wider deck gap while holding arm width at baseline or increasing it.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.82
arm width	×0.69
arm waist	×0.65
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.4°
rear sweep	41.3°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	42.3 mm
battery wedge	1.5°
plate thickness	×0.83
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 457bb2ac5e47new best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.038 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.3% better
scenario mean	3.721 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.634 Wh/km
frame mass	69.3 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 42 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents were sitting in the tight 6.048-6.050 plateau cluster with near-identical arm geometry, so the bet was that fine-tuning rear sweep alone — without touching arm or plate dimensions — could break the plateau.

methodVs the b26f1effed24 parent, essentially only rear sweep changed, tightening from 42.1° to 41.9°; all other genes (arm length x0.80, arm width x0.82, plate proportions) stayed put.

resultNEW WINNER at 6.038, undercutting the prior best-so-far of 6.045 and every plateau candidate this generation. Every scenario improved slightly, with storm dropping to 4.63 — evidence the plateau cluster still had headroom in sweep angle, not just arm/plate mass. Worth trying an even tighter rear sweep (~41.5°) to see if the gain continues or reverses.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.176	134.9	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.855	163.8	38.3°
crosswind	3.713	157.7	33.4°
gusty_light	3.562	151.3	32.3°
hot_thin	3.389	144.0	27.4°
storm	4.634	196.9	29.7°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	41.9°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	39.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.86
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 6f1d794a18c7

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.042 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.3% better
scenario mean	3.723 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.638 Wh/km
frame mass	69.0 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 43 via crossover

hypothesisSelf-crossover of an already-good genome, testing whether small independent tweaks to plate width, material blend, and rear sweep could nudge it toward the champion cluster.

methodPlate narrowed to ×1.01, material blend shifted to 0.27, rear sweep eased to 42.6°.

result6.042, a small improvement over its 6.045 parent but still short of the 6.038 best-so-far — an incremental step confirming this region is a shallow local optimum, not a breakthrough. Next: combine this rear-sweep/material direction with the winning thinner-plate move from 42b2f05c7846.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.175	134.9	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.864	164.2	38.4°
crosswind	3.711	157.6	33.4°
gusty_light	3.563	151.4	32.4°
hot_thin	3.388	143.9	27.4°
storm	4.638	197.1	30.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.6°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.86
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate ac358dd4b274

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.045 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.2% better
scenario mean	3.725 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.640 Wh/km
frame mass	69.3 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 43 via crossover

hypothesisTest whether crossing a solid performer with a much weaker genome could still import one useful trait from the weak parent.

methodGenes came out near-identical to the fit parent — the weak co-parent contributed essentially nothing at the crossover points chosen.

result6.045, matching its fit parent almost exactly and not challenging the 6.038 best-so-far. This shows the weak parent had no beneficial genes to contribute here, or the crossover point missed them entirely. Next: adjust crossover point selection so weak-parent material actually gets sampled rather than defaulting to the strong parent's genes.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.177	135.0	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.866	164.2	38.4°
crosswind	3.714	157.8	33.4°
gusty_light	3.565	151.5	32.4°
hot_thin	3.389	144.0	27.4°
storm	4.640	197.1	30.0°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.1°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	39.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.86
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate dbcbc5511a2c✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.048 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.2% better
scenario mean	3.727 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.642 Wh/km
frame mass	71.1 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 42 via designer

hypothesisWith the crossover population stuck oscillating around 6.045-6.05, the designer proposed a fresh, hand-tuned variant targeting the same arm-length/sweep region but with a notably tighter waist and thicker arm for extra stiffness margin.

methodFresh design (no parents): arm length x0.80, arm width x0.82, arm waist tightened to x0.48, and arm thickness raised to 4.6mm, with plate/sweep values matching the champion region.

resultFitness of 6.048, essentially matching the pre-generation plateau but not beating the 6.045 best-so-far. The extra arm mass from the thicker 4.6mm section and tighter waist didn't translate into a net efficiency gain over the leaner plateau designs. Worth trying this same waist/sweep combo with arm thickness dialed back toward 4.2mm to isolate whether waist or thickness was the limiting factor.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.178	135.0	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.867	164.3	38.3°
crosswind	3.719	158.0	33.4°
gusty_light	3.568	151.6	32.3°
hot_thin	3.391	144.0	27.4°
storm	4.642	197.2	30.0°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.48
arm thickness	4.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.1°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	39.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.86
material	pa12_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 0badd20e965e

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.076 Wh/km
vs baseline	11.8% better
scenario mean	3.744 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.663 Wh/km
frame mass	72.2 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 43 via pivot

hypothesisNear-clone of the fitter parent to test whether a razor-thin rear-sweep nudge alone could shave a little more off an already good design.

methodRear sweep trimmed marginally from 42.1° to 42.0°; everything else essentially unchanged from the fit parent.

result6.076, a tiny improvement over its 6.079 parent but still short of the 6.038 best-so-far. The negligible change produced a negligible result, suggesting this genome region has already converged to a local optimum. Next: try a larger, more deliberate change (e.g. plate thickness) rather than sub-degree sweep tweaks.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.194	135.7	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.880	164.8	38.5°
crosswind	3.737	158.8	33.5°
gusty_light	3.584	152.3	32.4°
hot_thin	3.408	144.8	27.4°
storm	4.663	198.1	30.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	39.6 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.95
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate d8448799edfe

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.117 Wh/km
vs baseline	11.2% better
scenario mean	3.770 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.694 Wh/km
frame mass	74.5 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 43 via pivot

hypothesisThe elite parent was near the plateau; this pivot bets that thickening the arms while narrowing them and easing rear sweep could trade a bit of aero drag for stiffness margin and unlock a small gain.

methodArm thickness raised to 4.9mm, arm width narrowed to ×0.76, rear sweep eased to 40.4°, deck gap widened slightly to 38.8mm.

resultLanded at 6.117, worse than its stronger parent (6.051) and well off the best-so-far (6.038) — not a new winner. The extra arm mass and eased sweep likely cost more in drag/weight than the stiffness gain paid back. Worth testing: thicken arm thickness alone without simultaneously narrowing width, to isolate the stiffness effect.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.212	136.4	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.916	166.4	38.6°
crosswind	3.765	160.0	33.6°
gusty_light	3.607	153.2	32.5°
hot_thin	3.426	145.5	27.5°
storm	4.694	199.4	31.0°

gene	value
arm length	×0.84
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.59
arm thickness	4.9 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.4°
rear sweep	40.4°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	38.8 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.81
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 9f063558a52d

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.141 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.8% better
scenario mean	3.785 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.713 Wh/km
frame mass	75.6 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 43 via pivot

hypothesisTest whether shortening the plate while thickening the arms and widening the arm waist could offset a thinner plate's weakness with reinforced arms.

methodPlate shortened to ×0.99, arm thickened to 4.7mm, plate thinned to ×0.90, arm waist widened to ×0.64.

result6.141, worse than its stronger parent (6.079) and off the best-so-far. The added arm mass from thickening and widening the waist outweighed whatever savings came from the shorter, thinner plate. Next: isolate plate-thinning and arm-thickening into separate pivots rather than combining them.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.225	137.0	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.932	167.1	38.7°
crosswind	3.777	160.5	33.6°
gusty_light	3.620	153.8	32.6°
hot_thin	3.441	146.2	27.6°
storm	4.713	200.2	31.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.81
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.64
arm thickness	4.7 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.8°
rear sweep	42.1°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	40.1 mm
battery wedge	0.6°
plate thickness	×0.90
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 2870779c5946✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.243 Wh/km
vs baseline	9.3% better
scenario mean	3.846 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.793 Wh/km
frame mass	87.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 43 via designer

hypothesisA deliberately lightweight, long-arm design betting that a longer lever arm with minimal material could cut mass enough to beat the stiffness penalty of thinner members.

methodArms lengthened 20% and thinned to 3.8mm while narrowed in width and waist; plate thickness nearly halved (×0.65) but built in stiffer cf_plate.

result6.243, valid but well behind the elite cluster (~6.04). The longer, thinner arms likely introduced flex-induced losses across scenarios that outweighed the mass savings. Next: keep the thin-plate concept but pull arm length back toward baseline to recover lost stiffness.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.275	139.1	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.998	169.8	39.0°
crosswind	3.838	163.0	33.9°
gusty_light	3.678	156.2	32.7°
hot_thin	3.495	148.5	27.6°
storm	4.793	203.6	32.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.20
arm width	×0.70
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	3.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.0°
rear sweep	40.0°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	35.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.65
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 90a9d9e00229

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.933 Wh/km
vs baseline	0.7% worse
scenario mean	4.272 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.323 Wh/km
frame mass	142.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 43 via immigrant

hypothesisWith the population converging around the elite cluster, this immigrant injects fresh genetic diversity to test whether an unrelated region of design space holds untapped potential.

methodFresh random genome: near-stock arm proportions, thick 6mm arms, cf_plate material, small 2.1° battery wedge, default deck gap and sweep.

result6.933, far behind the elite cluster's ~6.04 — valid but clearly uncompetitive. It did its job seeding diversity but landed in a weak region of the design space. Next: bias future immigrants toward the arm-thickness and sweep ranges the elites have already converged on, rather than fully random draws.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.647	154.9	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.430	188.2	39.3°
crosswind	4.262	181.0	34.1°
gusty_light	4.079	173.3	32.8°
hot_thin	3.889	165.2	27.7°
storm	5.323	226.1	32.8°

gene	value
arm length	×0.99
arm width	×1.00
arm waist	×1.00
arm thickness	6.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.4°
rear sweep	36.2°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	2.1°
plate thickness	×1.01
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 217a43900fa0

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	72.5 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 43 via pivot

hypothesisStarting from a tied-best parent, this pivot bets that lengthening the arms and widening the deck gap — borrowing structure from the weak co-parent — combined with a small battery tilt could open a new efficiency mode.

methodArm length increased to ×0.87, deck gap widened to 42.4mm, battery wedge tilted to 1.3°, plate thickened to ×0.92.

resultInvalid — failed arm tip deflection in pa12_cf. Pushing both arm length and deck gap outward increased the leverage on the arm tip faster than the thicker plate could compensate. Lesson: arm length and deck gap can't both grow without a matching arm-thickness increase, not just plate thickness. Next: repeat this pivot but add arm thickness instead of plate thickness.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.87
arm width	×0.86
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	42.4 mm
battery wedge	1.3°
plate thickness	×0.92
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 9ea1b394d56f

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	67.5 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 43 via pivot

hypothesisBet that tightening the frame (narrower deck gap, longer/slimmer plate) around an already strong arm design could cut mass and drag further.

methodDeck gap narrowed to 34.3mm, plate lengthened to ×1.06, arm width narrowed to ×0.79, arm thickness trimmed to 4.2mm.

resultInvalid — failed arm tip deflection in pa12_cf. Narrowing both arm width and thickness at once, while also tightening the deck gap, removed too much stiffness margin simultaneously. Lesson: mass-saving cuts to arm width need to be paired with unchanged (or increased) thickness, not a simultaneous cut. Next: retry the narrower deck gap alone, holding arm cross-section fixed.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.84
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.59
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.5°
rear sweep	41.1°
plate length	×1.06
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	34.3 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.81
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 52d0f02aaee2✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (petg)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	119.6 g
material	petg
born	generation 43 via designer

hypothesisAn aggressive, oversized frame bet: a much bigger plate, steeper rear sweep, and a strong battery tilt aiming for aerodynamic or handling gains if the structure could hold together.

methodPlate enlarged (length ×1.25, width ×1.18), deck gap widened to 43mm, rear sweep steepened to 48°, battery wedge tilted 15°, built in petg.

resultInvalid — failed arm tip deflection in petg. Petg is more flexible than pa12_cf/cf_plate, and the oversized plate plus wide deck gap piled too much load onto arms that couldn't handle it in this material. Next: keep the big-plate/wedge concept but rebuild it in pa12_cf or cf_plate before testing again.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.75
arm thickness	6.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.0°
rear sweep	48.0°
plate length	×1.25
plate width	×1.18
deck gap	43.0 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	petg

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate b060e8d5d1be✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm resonance with rotor 1P
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	135.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 43 via designer

hypothesisTest an extreme thick-but-narrow arm cross-section, betting that a slender, very stiff arm shape could cut drag while still resisting tip deflection.

methodArm width and waist narrowed sharply (×0.55 / ×0.50) while thickness increased to 9mm and length shortened slightly, in cf_plate.

resultInvalid — but not from deflection: the thick, narrow shape shifted the arm's natural frequency into resonance with the rotor's 1P frequency. This is a different failure mode than the usual stiffness limit, showing structural sizing also has to dodge rotor-frequency bands. Next: keep the narrow cross-section but adjust length/thickness specifically to detune the arm's natural frequency away from rotor 1P.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.85
arm width	×0.55
arm waist	×0.50
arm thickness	9.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	39.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 2991738d5132new best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.045 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.2% better
scenario mean	3.725 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.640 Wh/km
frame mass	69.2 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 41 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents (6.048, near-best, and 6.054) were already efficient; this cross bets that a slightly tighter arm waist combined with a longer plate could squeeze extra efficiency out of an already-strong design.

methodTightened arm waist from x0.60 to x0.58 and lengthened the plate from x1.03 to x1.04, with arm length essentially unchanged.

result6.045 — a NEW WINNER, beating the prior best-so-far of 6.0477. Every scenario ticked down slightly versus the near-best parent, with storm still the largest single contributor (4.64) but the lowest storm value in this batch — the tighter waist likely trimmed mass at negligible stiffness cost. Next: push the arm waist tighter still, toward x0.55, to see if the trend continues before deflection limits bite.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.177	135.0	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.865	164.2	38.4°
crosswind	3.714	157.8	33.4°
gusty_light	3.565	151.5	32.3°
hot_thin	3.389	144.0	27.4°
storm	4.640	197.1	30.0°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.1°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	39.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.86
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate f8c8be2c331f

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.047 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.2% better
scenario mean	3.727 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.640 Wh/km
frame mass	69.3 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 41 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the same b26f1effed24 x 0d752fea69f4 pairing that produced several siblings this generation, betting that a small battery wedge plus a marginally looser arm waist can find one more small efficiency gain in this well-explored region.

methodAdded a 0.4° battery wedge and loosened arm waist slightly from x0.60 to x0.61, with plate thickness and width essentially unchanged.

result6.047, essentially matching the pre-generation best-so-far (6.0477) but not quite beating the new leader already set this generation (2991738d5132 at 6.045) — a very tight race, with storm again at 4.64, tying the generation's best value there. Next: rerun this exact configuration with the tighter arm-waist value (x0.58) from the actual winner instead of x0.61 to see if it closes the gap.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.181	135.1	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.863	164.1	38.5°
crosswind	3.718	158.0	33.5°
gusty_light	3.567	151.5	32.4°
hot_thin	3.393	144.1	27.5°
storm	4.640	197.1	30.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.61
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	42.1°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	39.7 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.86
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 5df9751e95d0

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.050 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.1% better
scenario mean	3.728 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.644 Wh/km
frame mass	69.3 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 42 via crossover

hypothesisBlending a design near the current best-so-far (2991738d5132 at 6.045) with a slightly worse sibling, the bet was that a small battery-wedge tilt plus a rear-sweep bump could shift CG favorably under crosswind/storm loads.

methodVs the better parent, battery wedge was tilted to 0.3° (from flat 0.0°) and rear sweep opened slightly to 42.8°, with a small material blend shift that stayed within pa12_cf.

resultFitness landed at 6.05, matching the weaker parent and failing to beat the 6.045 best-so-far. The wedge tilt didn't pay off — storm actually rose to 4.64, suggesting off-axis battery mass isn't free even at small angles. Next worth isolating the rear-sweep change alone with wedge left at 0.0° to see if that piece was the useful half of this cross.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.177	135.0	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.875	164.6	38.6°
crosswind	3.716	157.9	33.5°
gusty_light	3.566	151.5	32.5°
hot_thin	3.389	144.0	27.5°
storm	4.644	197.3	30.9°

gene	value
arm length	×0.84
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.6°
rear sweep	42.8°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	38.2 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 00d69e7202dc

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.051 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.1% better
scenario mean	3.729 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.645 Wh/km
frame mass	69.4 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 41 via crossover

hypothesisA near-duplicate cross of the same lineage pairing sitting at ~6.053, testing whether a very small rear-sweep reduction plus slight waist tightening can inch past the parents.

methodReduced rear sweep from 41.5° to 41.1° and tightened arm waist from x0.60 to x0.59 — both minor tweaks.

result6.051, a marginal improvement over the ~6.053 parents but still behind the generation's new best-so-far (6.045). The small sweep and waist tweaks moved every scenario only slightly, confirming this design region responds smoothly but weakly to fine adjustment. Next: stack this rear-sweep trim with the tighter arm-waist value from the generation's actual winner to see if the two small gains compound.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.176	134.9	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.872	164.5	38.6°
crosswind	3.721	158.1	33.5°
gusty_light	3.568	151.6	32.4°
hot_thin	3.389	144.0	27.5°
storm	4.645	197.3	30.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.59
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.5°
rear sweep	41.1°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	38.1 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 4e8c86fe9cfd

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.053 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.1% better
scenario mean	3.729 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.646 Wh/km
frame mass	69.5 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 40 via crossover

hypothesisAnother self-cross of the champion, probing whether easing both sweep angles together and trimming plate thickness can shave a touch more mass off the leading design.

methodReduces front sweep from 36.1 to 35.6 degrees and rear sweep from 42.1 to 41.5 degrees, thins plate thickness from 0.82x to 0.80x, and shifts the material mix slightly.

resultScored 6.053, statistically flat versus the 6.051 champion, reinforcing that this neighborhood is a broad, shallow bowl rather than a sharp peak. Worth testing next: a larger simultaneous cut to both sweep angles to see if the flatness breaks with a bigger step.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.177	135.0	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.873	164.5	38.6°
crosswind	3.721	158.1	33.5°
gusty_light	3.569	151.6	32.4°
hot_thin	3.391	144.0	27.5°
storm	4.646	197.4	30.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.6°
rear sweep	41.5°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	38.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 862d8e667f8b

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.053 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.1% better
scenario mean	3.730 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.646 Wh/km
frame mass	69.7 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 42 via crossover

hypothesisWith two near-plateau parents both sitting around 6.047-6.048, this bet was that a slightly wider arm combined with a marginal plate-width trim could squeeze out a small stiffness/mass win.

methodVs the b26f1effed24 parent, arm width was widened from x0.82 to x0.87 while plate width was nudged down to x1.01 and plate length held near x1.03.

resultFitness came in at 6.053, worse than both parents (6.048/6.047) and well off the pre-generation best of 6.045; storm efficiency actually worsened to 4.65. The wider arm likely added mass without enough stiffness payoff to offset it. Worth testing an intermediate arm width (~x0.84) paired with the parent's original plate width instead of moving both at once.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.182	135.2	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.870	164.4	38.5°
crosswind	3.717	157.9	33.4°
gusty_light	3.569	151.6	32.4°
hot_thin	3.395	144.2	27.4°
storm	4.646	197.4	30.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	42.1°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.6 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.86
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 180679501aae

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.079 Wh/km
vs baseline	11.7% better
scenario mean	3.746 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.666 Wh/km
frame mass	72.1 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 42 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the fitter parent with the prior best-so-far, the bet was that adding plate thickness margin alongside a wider arm could buy extra stiffness headroom without much fitness cost.

methodVs the b26f1effed24 parent, plate thickness increased from x0.86 to x0.95 and arm width widened from x0.82 to x0.87, with all other genes held near parent values.

resultFitness came in at 6.079, worse than either parent and the worst valid result of the generation's crossovers, with storm rising to 4.67. The added plate mass clearly outweighed any stiffness benefit — this design space seems to already sit near its plate-thickness optimum. Worth reverting plate thickness to ~x0.86 and testing the wider arm width in isolation to see if that piece alone helps or hurts.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.195	135.8	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.886	165.1	38.6°
crosswind	3.737	158.7	33.5°
gusty_light	3.585	152.3	32.4°
hot_thin	3.409	144.8	27.5°
storm	4.666	198.2	30.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	42.1°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	39.6 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.95
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 95e920477f01✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.104 Wh/km
vs baseline	11.4% better
scenario mean	3.762 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.685 Wh/km
frame mass	77.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 42 via designer

hypothesisA second designer probe testing the opposite lever from dbcbc5511a2c: thinner arm and much thinner plate paired with a stiffer cf_plate material, betting that raw material stiffness could compensate for reduced cross-section.

methodFresh design: arm thickness thinned to 3.8mm, plate thickness cut sharply to x0.62, and material switched from pa12_cf to cf_plate, with arm waist at x0.58 matching the eventual winner.

resultFitness of 6.104, the worst valid design of the generation, with every scenario ticking up slightly and storm reaching 4.68. Swapping to cf_plate with an aggressively thinned plate seems to have hurt more than the arm thinning helped — cf_plate's mass/stiffness tradeoff doesn't favor this thin a section. Worth re-testing the x0.58 waist / thin-arm idea in pa12_cf with plate thickness left near the champion's x0.86.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.220	136.8	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.887	165.1	38.0°
crosswind	3.744	159.0	33.1°
gusty_light	3.601	153.0	32.1°
hot_thin	3.435	145.9	27.3°
storm	4.685	199.0	29.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	3.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.1°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	39.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.62
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate d94fcd57ce7b

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.910 Wh/km
vs baseline	0.3% worse
scenario mean	4.260 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.300 Wh/km
frame mass	129.6 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 42 via immigrant

hypothesisA third diversity immigrant testing whether an aggressive battery-wedge tilt combined with reinforced plates could unlock a different efficiency regime than the flat, thin-plate champion cluster.

methodRandom fresh genome: arm thickness set to 6.6mm, front sweep pushed to 51.0°, plates thickened to x1.55, and battery wedge tilted sharply to 9.1°.

resultValid at 6.91, better than the other immigrant this generation but still far behind the 6.045 best-so-far, with storm at 5.3. The steep wedge and thick plates add drag/mass that the small CG benefit doesn't offset. The earlier crossover 5df9751e95d0 showed even a 0.3° wedge already hurt slightly, so this confirms wedge tilt is a losing lever in this design space — worth abandoning battery wedge exploration and focusing immigrant diversity on sweep/waist instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.628	154.1	25.8°
cold_headwind	4.468	189.8	39.9°
crosswind	4.250	180.6	34.9°
gusty_light	4.057	172.4	33.4°
hot_thin	3.856	163.8	28.1°
storm	5.300	225.2	35.8°

gene	value
arm length	×0.87
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.84
arm thickness	6.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	51.0°
rear sweep	40.9°
plate length	×1.17
plate width	×1.21
deck gap	39.4 mm
battery wedge	9.1°
plate thickness	×1.55
material	pa12_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 7a3f2120adc9

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	7.836 Wh/km
vs baseline	13.8% worse
scenario mean	4.824 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.024 Wh/km
frame mass	205.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 42 via immigrant

hypothesisAnother diversity immigrant, this one probing the opposite extreme from the plateau cluster: an overbuilt, heavy-arm design using the stiffest material to see if brute stiffness could beat the lean champion line.

methodRandom fresh genome: arm length and width scaled way up (x1.33/x1.34), arm thickness raised to 8.0mm, plates enlarged (x1.27/x1.16), and material switched to solid cf_plate.

resultValid but far worse at 7.836 vs the 6.045 best-so-far — every scenario suffered, with storm hitting 6.02. The extra stiffness bought nothing once the mass penalty of thick arms and heavy cf_plate is counted against Wh/km. Confirms the champion lineage's leaner arms are closer to the true optimum than brute reinforcement; not worth pursuing this direction further except maybe as a component donor for arm-waist ratio ideas.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	4.080	173.3	26.0°
cold_headwind	5.106	216.9	41.2°
crosswind	4.810	204.3	36.0°
gusty_light	4.579	194.5	34.2°
hot_thin	4.343	184.5	28.4°
storm	6.024	255.9	40.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.33
arm width	×1.34
arm waist	×0.42
arm thickness	8.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.0°
rear sweep	49.7°
plate length	×1.27
plate width	×1.16
deck gap	40.3 mm
battery wedge	4.1°
plate thickness	×0.82
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 42ca51189c9f

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pet_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	102.8 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 42 via immigrant

hypothesisWith the population clustered tightly around 6.045-6.05, this immigrant was thrown in purely for diversity, probing a lighter pet_cf build with thin arms and much larger plates far outside the champion's footprint.

methodRandom fresh genome: arm thickness dropped to 3.3mm, arm waist pinched to x0.96, plates scaled up to x1.10/x1.22 length/width, and material switched to pet_cf.

resultInvalid — killed by arm tip deflection under pet_cf. The combination of thin arms, a long overall arm length (x0.76 base but big plate loads), and a less stiff material pushed past the deflection limit. Confirms pet_cf needs thicker arms than pa12_cf to survive; worth re-testing this plate/sweep concept in pa12_cf or with arm thickness raised toward 5mm+.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.76
arm width	×1.05
arm waist	×0.96
arm thickness	3.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	46.0°
rear sweep	48.1°
plate length	×1.10
plate width	×1.22
deck gap	40.2 mm
battery wedge	3.2°
plate thickness	×1.52
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate e277be04787c

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	69.6 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 42 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two mid-6.05 parents, the bet was that lengthening the arm slightly while retuning plate proportions and front sweep could trim aerodynamic losses in the gustier scenarios.

methodVs the fitter parent, arm length grew from x0.83 to x0.87, plate width trimmed to x1.01, plate length grew to x1.06, and front sweep tightened from 35.5° to 34.8°.

resultInvalid — arm tip deflection failure even in pa12_cf. Stretching the arm without also increasing waist or thickness pushed it past the stiffness margin that the shorter-armed plateau cluster relies on. Lesson: any arm-length increase in this lineage needs a compensating waist or thickness bump; worth retrying with arm waist raised toward x0.60+ to see if the longer arm becomes viable.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.87
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.8°
rear sweep	41.8°
plate length	×1.06
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	38.1 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 87764e8d2b28

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	67.0 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 42 via crossover

hypothesisCombining two 6.05-ish parents, the bet was that trimming arm thickness slightly and tightening the deck gap could shave mass while staying within the stiffness envelope that the plateau cluster tolerates.

methodVs the b26f1effed24 parent, arm thickness dropped from 4.3mm to 4.1mm, deck gap tightened from 38.2mm to 37.6mm, plate width nudged up to x1.04, and material blended slightly toward 0.27.

resultInvalid — arm tip deflection failure in pa12_cf. At this arm length/waist combo, 4.1mm proved just below the safe thickness threshold that 457bb2ac5e47 and ef6352398ebc (both 4.2mm) sit above. This pins the deflection knee-point for this arm geometry between 4.1mm and 4.2mm — worth testing 4.2mm with the tighter deck gap to see if the gap change alone is safe.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.84
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.6°
rear sweep	42.2°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.04
deck gap	37.6 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate b26f1effed24new best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.048 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.2% better
scenario mean	3.727 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.642 Wh/km
frame mass	69.4 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 40 via crossover

hypothesisBets that 7f8d4756ea04's thinner arm gauge, crossed onto the champion's proven sweep and plate geometry, can trim mass without repeating the deflection failure seen when the champion's own arm was thinned directly earlier this generation.

methodDrops arm thickness from 4.8 to 4.2 mm and shortens arm length from 0.83x to 0.80x relative to the champion base, while thickening the plate from 0.82x to 0.86x to compensate and widening arm width slightly.

resultScored 6.048 Wh/km, a NEW WINNER, edging past the prior best of 6.051. Shortening the arm alongside the thinner gauge and a slightly beefier plate appears to have found a better mass-versus-stiffness balance than the champion's own proportions, succeeding where the earlier direct arm-thinning attempt failed by keeping deflection in check through the shorter arm. Worth testing next: push arm length and thickness a bit further in this direction to map the edges of this new local optimum.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.179	135.1	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.866	164.2	38.5°
crosswind	3.715	157.8	33.4°
gusty_light	3.567	151.5	32.4°
hot_thin	3.392	144.1	27.4°
storm	4.642	197.2	30.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	42.1°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	39.6 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.86
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 0d752fea69f4

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.050 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.1% better
scenario mean	3.728 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.644 Wh/km
frame mass	69.3 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 40 via crossover

hypothesisTests whether 7d43a417f1f2's rear sweep angle, crossed onto the champion base, can add a small refinement despite that parent's own weaker overall score.

methodNarrows arm waist slightly from 0.60x to 0.58x, adds a touch of front sweep (36.1 to 36.6 degrees) and rear sweep (up to 42.5 degrees), and thins the plate slightly.

resultScored 6.05, essentially tying the pre-generation champion, but it lands just after b26f1effed24 already claimed the new best of 6.048, so it does not become the new leader. It shows the champion's neighborhood tolerates this waist/sweep/plate-thickness combo without penalty, but doesn't out-innovate the arm-shortening trick that won this generation. Worth testing next: apply b26f1effed24's shorter, thinner arm to this rear-sweep variant to see if the two improvements stack.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.174	134.8	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.875	164.6	38.5°
crosswind	3.720	158.0	33.5°
gusty_light	3.566	151.5	32.4°
hot_thin	3.387	143.9	27.5°
storm	4.644	197.3	30.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.84
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.6°
rear sweep	42.5°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	38.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate d7e4979050ec

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.053 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.1% better
scenario mean	3.730 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.646 Wh/km
frame mass	69.5 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 41 via crossover

hypothesisCross of two lineages already sitting at ~6.053, mostly testing whether combining them without a real gene change reproduces or slightly beats parent performance.

methodPlate width shifted from x1.03 to x1.03 — a negligible change, with nearly every other gene matching the parents already.

result6.053, matching the parents almost exactly and confirming this gene combination is at a local optimum — it landed behind the new best-so-far (6.045) set earlier in this same generation. With no meaningful gene change, no new information was gained here. Next: skip near-duplicate crosses like this and force a distinguishing mutation (arm waist or sweep) whenever parents are this similar.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.177	135.0	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.874	164.6	38.6°
crosswind	3.721	158.1	33.5°
gusty_light	3.569	151.6	32.5°
hot_thin	3.390	144.0	27.5°
storm	4.646	197.4	30.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.6°
rear sweep	41.5°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	38.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 2af171e11744

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.053 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.1% better
scenario mean	3.730 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.647 Wh/km
frame mass	70.1 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 41 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two parents at 6.053 and 6.051 probes whether a slight arm-width increase paired with a tighter arm waist and reduced front sweep can push this near-plateaued lineage down further.

methodArm width increased slightly from x0.78 to x0.80, front sweep reduced from 36.1° to 35.6°, and arm waist tightened from x0.58 to x0.56.

result6.053, essentially flat with the parents and behind the new best-so-far (6.045). The width increase and waist tightening appear to have offset each other, netting no real change. Next: try the arm-waist tightening alone, without the width increase, to isolate its effect.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.174	134.9	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.875	164.6	38.5°
crosswind	3.723	158.2	33.5°
gusty_light	3.569	151.6	32.4°
hot_thin	3.388	143.9	27.5°
storm	4.647	197.4	30.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.6°
rear sweep	42.1°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	38.1 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 2bb6414b71fa

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.054 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.1% better
scenario mean	3.731 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.646 Wh/km
frame mass	69.9 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 41 via crossover

hypothesisAnother cross of the same b26f1effed24 x 0d752fea69f4 pairing, this one testing a much larger battery-wedge tilt to see if a bigger mass-balance shift finally pays off where the smaller wedges tried by siblings this generation didn't.

methodIncreased battery wedge to 1.6°, shortened the plate to x1.00, narrowed arm width to x0.78, and lengthened the arm slightly to x0.83.

result6.054, essentially flat with the parents and behind the generation's new best-so-far (6.045) — confirming that no battery-wedge angle tried this generation (0.2° through 1.6°) beat a flat 0° wedge. Every scenario read within a few hundredths of the zero-wedge baseline. Next: drop battery wedge as a lever for this lineage and put mutation budget instead into the arm-waist tightening direction that produced this generation's actual win.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.185	135.3	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.869	164.4	38.4°
crosswind	3.721	158.1	33.4°
gusty_light	3.571	151.7	32.3°
hot_thin	3.397	144.3	27.4°
storm	4.646	197.4	30.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.4 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.5°
rear sweep	42.1°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	39.5 mm
battery wedge	1.6°
plate thickness	×0.86
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate f51834f0b747

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.058 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.0% better
scenario mean	3.734 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.648 Wh/km
frame mass	70.4 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 41 via crossover

hypothesisWith both parents already tight around 6.05, this cross probes whether a small battery-wedge tilt paired with a longer plate and tighter arm waist can trim a bit more off the storm and crosswind scenarios.

methodAdded a 1.0° battery wedge (from flat), lengthened the plate to x1.05, opened rear sweep to 43.0°, and tightened arm waist to x0.56.

result6.058 came in essentially flat with the parents and slightly behind the pre-generation best-so-far (6.048). None of the four changes moved any scenario meaningfully, suggesting this region of gene space is already saturated. Next: push the battery wedge further, to 2-3°, since 1° alone looks too subtle to register.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.185	135.3	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.871	164.4	38.4°
crosswind	3.728	158.4	33.5°
gusty_light	3.574	151.8	32.4°
hot_thin	3.397	144.3	27.4°
storm	4.648	197.5	30.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	43.0°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	38.1 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.81
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 1d1a039b58b4

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.104 Wh/km
vs baseline	11.4% better
scenario mean	3.761 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.686 Wh/km
frame mass	74.1 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 41 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two strong parents (6.048 and 6.05) tests whether thickening the arms for extra margin, paired with a shorter plate, trades a bit of efficiency for robustness or is just dead weight.

methodThickened arms from 4.2mm to 4.7mm, shortened the plate from x1.03 to x1.01, shifted the material blend ratio, and opened the deck gap to 40.3mm.

result6.104 came in noticeably worse than both parents and the new best-so-far (6.045). The thicker arms likely added mass across every scenario without a matching stiffness payoff, since neither parent was failing deflection checks to begin with. Next: revert arm thickness to parent level and test the shorter plate change alone, since that may be the only genuinely useful piece here.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.205	136.1	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.906	165.9	38.6°
crosswind	3.754	159.5	33.5°
gusty_light	3.599	152.9	32.5°
hot_thin	3.420	145.3	27.5°
storm	4.686	199.1	30.9°

gene	value
arm length	×0.81
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.7 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.9°
rear sweep	42.1°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	40.3 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.86
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 8eb779f55ac7

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.107 Wh/km
vs baseline	11.3% better
scenario mean	3.763 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.689 Wh/km
frame mass	71.8 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 41 via crossover

hypothesisBlending a solid parent (6.05) with a weaker one (6.131) tests whether the weaker parent's longer arm and wider waist taper could still pay off once paired with the stronger parent's other genes.

methodArm length grew from x0.84 to x0.89, arm waist widened from x0.58 to x0.62, plate width nudged to x1.04, and deck gap opened slightly to 38.9mm.

result6.107 landed between the two parents but well short of best-so-far (6.048) and the stronger parent alone. The longer arm and wider waist added cost fairly uniformly across every scenario rather than fixing a specific weakness, so the weaker parent's traits didn't transfer any advantage. Next: test the arm-length increase alone, without the waist widening, to see which change is the bigger drag.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.201	136.0	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.920	166.5	38.9°
crosswind	3.754	159.5	33.7°
gusty_light	3.598	152.9	32.6°
hot_thin	3.415	145.1	27.6°
storm	4.689	199.2	31.7°

gene	value
arm length	×0.89
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.62
arm thickness	4.4 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.5°
rear sweep	42.3°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.04
deck gap	38.9 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate e1d2da86901c

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.119 Wh/km
vs baseline	11.1% better
scenario mean	3.771 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.696 Wh/km
frame mass	75.3 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 41 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing a weaker parent (6.131) with a solid one (6.051) bets that thinning the plate and tightening the arm waist — both efficiency-leaning moves — can pull the weaker lineage's genes up toward competitive territory.

methodAdded a 0.4° battery wedge, thinned plate thickness from x0.83 to x0.80, tightened arm waist from x0.60 to x0.58, and slightly widened arms to x0.83.

result6.119 improved on the weaker parent but still fell well short of the stronger parent and the generation's new best (6.045). The thinner plate and tighter waist helped some, but not enough to overcome whatever inefficiency the weaker parent still carries. Next: apply only the plate-thinning change on top of the stronger parent's full gene set, dropping the weaker parent's contribution entirely.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.213	136.5	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.915	166.3	38.6°
crosswind	3.766	160.0	33.6°
gusty_light	3.608	153.3	32.5°
hot_thin	3.428	145.6	27.5°
storm	4.696	199.5	30.8°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.9 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.5°
rear sweep	40.8°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	41.9 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 80c5ee1097bf

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.146 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.8% better
scenario mean	3.788 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.715 Wh/km
frame mass	75.9 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 41 via crossover

hypothesisPairing a mediocre performer (6.148) with a near-best one (6.048) tests whether trimming plate width and closing the deck gap — pulled toward the weaker parent — can still net a win riding on the stronger parent's frame.

methodReduced plate width from x1.02 to x1.00, closed deck gap from 41.9mm to 40.6mm, lengthened the plate to x1.07, and added a small 0.2° battery wedge.

result6.146 stayed close to the weaker parent and far behind both the stronger parent and the generation's new best (6.045). The narrower plate and tighter deck gap didn't rescue the weaker parent's other liabilities, with storm again spiking highest (4.72). Next: isolate which of the weaker parent's genes is dragging fitness down before crossing it again, since it's likely outside the genes changed here.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.230	137.2	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.936	167.2	38.8°
crosswind	3.781	160.6	33.8°
gusty_light	3.622	153.9	32.6°
hot_thin	3.443	146.3	27.6°
storm	4.715	200.3	31.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.88
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	38.9°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	40.6 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.83
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 9ba9158bdef9

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.259 Wh/km
vs baseline	9.1% better
scenario mean	3.857 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.803 Wh/km
frame mass	91.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 41 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents had plateaued around 6.053; this cross bets that opening up the front sweep and switching to a stiffer straight carbon-fiber plate (instead of the pa12_cf blend) could cut drag or mass without giving up structural margin.

methodIncreased front sweep from about 35.6° to 37.3° and swapped the material from pa12_cf to cf_plate; plate width was left essentially unchanged.

resultFitness rose to 6.259, well behind both parents and far off best-so-far (6.048). Every scenario got worse, especially storm (4.80, the biggest driver of the 0.5x-worst penalty) — the stiffer cf_plate material likely added mass without the extra sweep buying enough aerodynamic gain to compensate. Next: repeat the sweep increase but keep pa12_cf to isolate whether sweep or material caused the regression.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.302	140.3	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.984	169.3	38.0°
crosswind	3.840	163.1	33.1°
gusty_light	3.691	156.8	32.1°
hot_thin	3.522	149.6	27.3°
storm	4.803	204.1	29.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.3°
rear sweep	41.6°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	38.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 7e8868b08525

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pla_plus)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	113.7 g
material	pla_plus
born	generation 41 via immigrant

hypothesisA fresh random immigrant, injected to probe an unrelated region of the design space — fatter arms, wider plate, an aggressive battery wedge, and a softer print material — that the crossover lineage hasn't explored.

methodWidened arms by roughly 28%, thickened the waist by 20%, tilted the battery wedge to 9.1°, and switched material to pla_plus, a softer polymer than the carbon blends dominating the population.

resultInvalid — failed the arm tip deflection check under pla_plus. Combining a large battery wedge (more cantilevered load) with a softer, less rigid material was too much flex for the arms to hold tolerance. Lesson: pla_plus needs conservative arm geometry to survive; pairing it with aggressive wedge and width changes is a losing combination. Next: retry a pla_plus immigrant with near-baseline arm dimensions and zero battery wedge.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.97
arm width	×1.28
arm waist	×1.20
arm thickness	4.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.5°
rear sweep	35.2°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.22
deck gap	42.6 mm
battery wedge	9.1°
plate thickness	×1.19
material	pla_plus

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 913f15a5a9benew best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.051 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.1% better
scenario mean	3.729 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.645 Wh/km
frame mass	70.0 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 39 via crossover

hypothesisRecombine two selected parents: their strengths may be complementary. Parents: 0166ab (6.12) and ca8834 (6.11) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: arm thickness 4.3 mm (was arm thickness 4.8 mm), deck gap 38.2 mm (was deck gap 39.5 mm), arm width ×0.81 (was arm width ×0.80).

resultAggregate 6.051 Wh/km. NEW BEST-SO-FAR at evaluation time. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.179	135.0	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.869	164.3	38.4°
crosswind	3.723	158.2	33.5°
gusty_light	3.568	151.6	32.3°
hot_thin	3.391	144.1	27.4°
storm	4.645	197.3	29.9°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	42.1°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	38.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.82
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 9a6c9cf64456

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.053 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.1% better
scenario mean	3.730 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.646 Wh/km
frame mass	70.2 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 40 via crossover

hypothesisTests whether blending the champion's arm and plate geometry with da4458bc7198's slightly different arm width and material ratio can nudge past the current plateau.

methodNarrows arm width slightly, thickens the arm from 4.3 to 4.5 mm, tightens the arm waist a touch, and shifts the material mix modestly.

resultScored 6.053, essentially matching the 6.051 champion but not beating it, which confirms this region of the design space is a flat bowl where small multi-gene trades wash out. Worth testing next: a larger single-gene sweep, such as sweep angle alone, to see if a bigger step breaks the plateau.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.178	135.0	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.871	164.4	38.4°
crosswind	3.724	158.2	33.5°
gusty_light	3.569	151.6	32.3°
hot_thin	3.391	144.1	27.4°
storm	4.646	197.4	29.9°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	42.1°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	38.1 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 94d7793ebd81

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.054 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.1% better
scenario mean	3.731 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.646 Wh/km
frame mass	69.8 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 40 via crossover

hypothesisTests whether pulling in ca88346c95ae's tighter deck gap and wider arm waist onto the champion base trades some storm robustness for calm-air efficiency.

methodShrinks plate length slightly, tightens deck gap from 38.2 to 36.8 mm, widens arm waist from 0.60x to 0.64x, and eases rear sweep slightly.

resultScored 6.054, just a hair off the 6.051 champion, showing the wider waist and tighter deck gap combo is close to neutral rather than beneficial. Worth testing next: apply the tighter deck gap alone, without widening the waist, to isolate which change carries the small penalty.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.185	135.3	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.866	164.2	38.5°
crosswind	3.722	158.1	33.5°
gusty_light	3.572	151.7	32.4°
hot_thin	3.398	144.3	27.4°
storm	4.646	197.4	30.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.85
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.64
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.4°
rear sweep	41.4°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	36.8 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.82
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 1e085d6fc34d

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.103 Wh/km
vs baseline	11.4% better
scenario mean	3.760 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.686 Wh/km
frame mass	73.6 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 39 via crossover

hypothesisRecombine two selected parents: their strengths may be complementary. Parents: da4458 (6.11) and f0383d (6.13) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: plate width ×1.05 (was plate width ×1.02), arm waist ×0.56 (was arm waist ×0.60), material 0.29 (was material 0.25), arm thickness 4.7 mm (was arm thickness 4.8 mm).

resultAggregate 6.103 Wh/km. Best-so-far was 6.113 -- no improvement. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.198	135.8	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.912	166.2	38.6°
crosswind	3.755	159.5	33.6°
gusty_light	3.597	152.8	32.5°
hot_thin	3.414	145.0	27.5°
storm	4.686	199.1	31.0°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.7 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.9°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	39.9 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.82
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 132ad498aa78

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.131 Wh/km
vs baseline	11.0% better
scenario mean	3.777 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.708 Wh/km
frame mass	75.7 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 40 via crossover

hypothesisCombines two similarly-performing mid-pack designs (6.12 and 6.103) to see if their differences in arm width and rear sweep are complementary.

methodWidens arm width slightly, eases rear sweep from 41.5 to 40.9 degrees, and thickens the arm marginally from 4.8 to 4.9 mm.

resultScored 6.131, landing between the two parents rather than beating either, another sign this particular gene combination lacks positive interaction. Worth testing next: pair 1e085d6fc34d's rear sweep with the champion lineage's arm thickness instead of 3f41acfb942f's.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.211	136.4	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.931	167.0	38.7°
crosswind	3.771	160.2	33.6°
gusty_light	3.613	153.5	32.5°
hot_thin	3.429	145.7	27.5°
storm	4.708	200.0	31.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.9 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.9°
rear sweep	40.9°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	42.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.83
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate f599a08e6b30

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.148 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.7% better
scenario mean	3.789 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.719 Wh/km
frame mass	76.6 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 40 via crossover

hypothesisTwo similarly-scoring parents around 6.11 are combined hoping their differing sweep angle and deck-gap choices complement each other.

methodCuts rear sweep sharply from 42 to 38.9 degrees, lengthens the arm, opens the deck gap, and lengthens the plate.

resultScored 6.148, worse than both parents, so the combination underperformed either individually. The aggressive rear-sweep cut likely hurt crosswind/storm stability more than the longer arm and wider deck gap helped efficiency. Worth testing next: keep rear sweep near the parents' value and isolate just the deck-gap and plate-length changes.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.225	137.0	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.940	167.4	38.9°
crosswind	3.784	160.8	33.8°
gusty_light	3.623	153.9	32.6°
hot_thin	3.440	146.2	27.6°
storm	4.719	200.5	31.7°

gene	value
arm length	×0.88
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	38.9°
plate length	×1.06
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	41.9 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.83
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate c1b516e9f31c

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.157 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.6% better
scenario mean	3.795 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.725 Wh/km
frame mass	82.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 40 via crossover

hypothesis1e085d6fc34d's leaner front sweep looked like a promising trait, so crossing it onto 3a9a12eda70c's frame tests whether that benefit transfers across a different base geometry.

methodCuts front sweep from 37.7 to 34.9 degrees, adds a small 0.6-degree battery wedge, and opens the deck gap slightly.

resultScored 6.157, close to but slightly worse than the better parent's 6.103, so the sweep benefit didn't fully carry over and the added battery wedge may have cost some storm stability. Worth testing next: this same front-sweep value with the battery wedge left at zero.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.247	137.9	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.922	166.6	38.1°
crosswind	3.778	160.5	33.2°
gusty_light	3.632	154.3	32.2°
hot_thin	3.463	147.1	27.3°
storm	4.725	200.7	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.86
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.9°
rear sweep	41.8°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	41.3 mm
battery wedge	0.6°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 8043ba576adb

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.175 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.3% better
scenario mean	3.805 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.741 Wh/km
frame mass	78.8 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 40 via mutation

hypothesisba3335941d8f was a mid-pack design at 6.195 with room to tighten, so this mutation bets that a narrower arm waist plus more rear sweep will trim drag.

methodNarrows arm waist from 0.60x to 0.55x and increases rear sweep from 45 to 46.2 degrees.

resultScored 6.175, an improvement over its 6.195 parent but still well off the 6.051 champion, showing the waist/sweep tweak helps at the margin without fixing whatever else keeps this branch behind. Worth testing next: carry this waist/sweep combo onto the champion's leaner plate thickness to see if the gains stack.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.236	137.5	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.958	168.1	38.9°
crosswind	3.801	161.5	34.0°
gusty_light	3.640	154.6	32.7°
hot_thin	3.454	146.7	27.6°
storm	4.741	201.4	31.7°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	46.2°
plate length	×1.15
plate width	×1.15
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.83
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 24d993b7140b

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.180 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.3% better
scenario mean	3.808 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.743 Wh/km
frame mass	84.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 40 via crossover

hypothesisBlends two mid-pack cf_plate designs (6.159 and 6.12) to see if combining the sturdier plate proportions of one with the arm geometry of the other can close the gap to the leaders.

methodSlightly lengthens the plate, widens the arm waist a bit, thickens the plate marginally, and nudges the material mix further toward cf_plate.

resultScored 6.18, worse than both parents rather than splitting the difference favorably. The wider waist and thicker plate likely added mass that outweighed any stiffness benefit. Worth testing next: keep the material shift but hold plate thickness at the leaner parent's value.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.259	138.5	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.939	167.4	38.2°
crosswind	3.790	161.0	33.2°
gusty_light	3.644	154.8	32.2°
hot_thin	3.475	147.6	27.4°
storm	4.743	201.5	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.86
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.7°
rear sweep	41.8°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	40.9 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 044622631444

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.210 Wh/km
vs baseline	9.8% better
scenario mean	3.826 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.766 Wh/km
frame mass	87.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 40 via mutation

hypothesis03b32f3eab46 was another mid-pack cf_plate design at 6.192; this mutation tests whether widening the arm and shifting the material ratio can recover some of the gap to the leaders.

methodWidens arm width from 0.75x to 0.85x, shifts the material mix further toward cf_plate, thickens the plate from 0.72x to 0.75x, and trims arm thickness slightly.

resultScored 6.21, worse than its 6.192 parent, so the wider arm and thicker plate added more mass and drag than they saved. This branch is trending the wrong direction. Worth testing next: revert the plate thickness increase and isolate just the material shift to see if that alone helps.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.274	139.1	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.956	168.1	38.2°
crosswind	3.807	161.7	33.1°
gusty_light	3.662	155.6	32.2°
hot_thin	3.492	148.4	27.3°
storm	4.766	202.5	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.81
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.7°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	40.9 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 6db49c8c6352

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.442 Wh/km
vs baseline	6.5% better
scenario mean	3.970 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.944 Wh/km
frame mass	106.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 40 via crossover

hypothesisTwo equally-scored parents at 6.113 are crossed to test whether leaning further into cf_plate with a reinforced arm gauge could buy more storm robustness without giving up much elsewhere.

methodShifts the material mix toward cf_plate, thickens the arm substantially from 4.8 to 5.4 mm, and nudges both sweep angles up slightly.

resultScored 6.442, notably worse than both parents, showing the heavier arm gauge cost far more in mass and drag than it gained in stiffness margin. This confirms the arm-thickness sweet spot sits well below 5 mm for this frame family. Worth testing next: the sweep-angle changes alone, without the arm thickness increase.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.395	144.2	25.4°
cold_headwind	4.104	174.3	38.2°
crosswind	3.960	168.2	33.3°
gusty_light	3.798	161.4	32.3°
hot_thin	3.621	153.8	27.4°
storm	4.944	210.0	29.7°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	5.4 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.6°
rear sweep	42.6°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.82
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 58571c6a9bc4

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	7.477 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.6% worse
scenario mean	4.604 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.746 Wh/km
frame mass	170.1 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 40 via immigrant

hypothesisWith the population converging tightly around the 6.05-6.2 band, an immigrant is injected from a completely different design region in case a better optimum exists outside the converged neighborhood.

methodA fresh random genome with much longer and thicker arms (7.9 mm), a wide plate, a tight deck gap, a steep 13.6-degree battery wedge, and pet_cf material.

resultScored 7.477, well off the leading pack, confirming the converged slender-arm design region really is favorable and that chunky arms plus a steep wedge cost heavily in drag and mass. Not competitive, but it widens the search space for future generations. Worth testing next: retry the pet_cf material idea on the champion's slender arm/plate proportions instead of this bulky frame.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.876	164.7	26.1°
cold_headwind	4.888	207.7	41.2°
crosswind	4.615	196.0	36.2°
gusty_light	4.373	185.8	34.2°
hot_thin	4.128	175.4	28.5°
storm	5.746	244.1	40.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.73
arm waist	×1.03
arm thickness	7.9 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	30.8°
rear sweep	40.2°
plate length	×1.17
plate width	×1.17
deck gap	33.0 mm
battery wedge	13.6°
plate thickness	×1.13
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate b58c522a2c18

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	65.2 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 40 via crossover

hypothesis913f15a5a9be has been sitting at the top of the pack at 6.051, so this self-cross bets that shaving the arm gauge further can trim mass and drag without giving up the stiffness margin that's held so far.

methodSelf-cross of the champion that drops arm thickness from 4.3 mm to 3.8 mm, leaving every other dimension unchanged.

resultInvalid: failed the arm tip deflection check for pa12_cf, meaning the champion's arm was already close to its minimum safe gauge at this length and sweep. That sets a practical floor on arm thickness for this material/geometry combo. Worth testing next: pair a thinner arm with a shorter arm length or a stiffer material blend to recover the lost bending stiffness.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	3.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	42.1°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	38.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.82
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate da4458bc7198new best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.113 Wh/km
vs baseline	11.2% better
scenario mean	3.766 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.694 Wh/km
frame mass	74.3 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 38 via mutation

hypothesisca88346c95ae was already sitting at the current best-so-far (6.113), essentially plateaued; the bet here is a minimal, conservative nudge to plate proportions to see if there's still a sliver of headroom left in this exact design.

methodNudged the deck plate very slightly narrower and marginally thicker, leaving every other dimension untouched.

resultThis is a NEW WINNER, edging out the prior best-so-far by a hair (6.113 vs. 6.113342753485389) — confirming this design region (short, high-waist arms, thick heavy-duty plate, PA12-CF material) is genuinely at a local optimum, since even a near-null mutation can still squeeze out incremental gains. Worth testing: try equally tiny nudges to arm waist or arm thickness next, since plate-only tweaks are nearly exhausted.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.203	136.1	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.919	166.5	38.6°
crosswind	3.761	159.8	33.6°
gusty_light	3.603	153.1	32.5°
hot_thin	3.419	145.2	27.5°
storm	4.694	199.4	31.0°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.83
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate ca88346c95aenew best when evaluated✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.113 Wh/km
vs baseline	11.2% better
scenario mean	3.766 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.694 Wh/km
frame mass	74.2 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 36 via designer

hypothesisWith most pivots and crossovers this generation stalling or failing on mount/clearance constraints, this was a from-scratch designer bet that pa12_cf material — done correctly this time with adequate plate gauge — could beat the incumbent champion outright.

methodHand-specified a full gene set: arm length ×0.83, width ×0.78, waist ×0.60, thickness 4.8mm, plate thickness ×0.82, switched fully to pa12_cf material, keeping sweep angles and deck gap near the champion's values.

result6.113 — a NEW WINNER, beating even this generation's earlier mutation winner (6.131) and the prior champion (6.144); the best result of the whole generation. Every scenario improved (calm_warm 3.20, storm 4.69), showing that pa12_cf delivers a genuine edge over cf_plate once its minimum-gauge requirement is respected — exactly what 29c0da1fa718's pivot failed to do earlier. Next: run pivots off this new pa12_cf champion to fine-tune arm thickness and battery wedge now that the material's gauge floor is understood.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.202	136.0	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.920	166.5	38.6°
crosswind	3.761	159.8	33.6°
gusty_light	3.603	153.0	32.5°
hot_thin	3.418	145.2	27.5°
storm	4.694	199.4	30.9°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.82
material	pa12_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate dbf202026ed3

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.115 Wh/km
vs baseline	11.2% better
scenario mean	3.768 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.695 Wh/km
frame mass	74.9 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 39 via crossover

hypothesisRecombine two selected parents: their strengths may be complementary. Parents: da4458 (6.11) and f0383d (6.13) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: arm width ×0.80 (was arm width ×0.78), arm length ×0.84 (was arm length ×0.83), material 0.26 (was material 0.25), deck gap 40.2 mm (was deck gap 40.0 mm).

resultAggregate 6.115 Wh/km. Best-so-far was 6.113 -- no improvement. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.207	136.2	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.917	166.4	38.6°
crosswind	3.761	159.8	33.6°
gusty_light	3.604	153.1	32.5°
hot_thin	3.423	145.4	27.5°
storm	4.695	199.5	30.8°

gene	value
arm length	×0.84
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	40.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.82
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 7f8d4756ea04

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.120 Wh/km
vs baseline	11.1% better
scenario mean	3.771 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.698 Wh/km
frame mass	74.8 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 39 via crossover

hypothesisRecombine two selected parents: their strengths may be complementary. Parents: 0166ab (6.12) and 0166ab (6.12) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: arm thickness 4.8 mm (was arm thickness 4.8 mm).

resultAggregate 6.120 Wh/km. Best-so-far was 6.113 -- no improvement. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.212	136.4	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.917	166.4	38.5°
crosswind	3.766	160.0	33.6°
gusty_light	3.608	153.3	32.4°
hot_thin	3.427	145.6	27.5°
storm	4.698	199.6	30.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	42.1°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	39.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.82
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 3f41acfb942f

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.120 Wh/km
vs baseline	11.1% better
scenario mean	3.771 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.699 Wh/km
frame mass	74.6 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 39 via crossover

hypothesisRecombine two selected parents: their strengths may be complementary. Parents: da4458 (6.11) and 0166ab (6.12) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: deck gap 41.7 mm (was deck gap 40.0 mm), front sweep 34.9° (was front sweep 36.0°), material 0.22 (was material 0.25), rear sweep 41.5° (was rear sweep 42.0°).

resultAggregate 6.120 Wh/km. Best-so-far was 6.113 -- no improvement. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.208	136.3	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.924	166.7	38.7°
crosswind	3.763	159.9	33.6°
gusty_light	3.607	153.2	32.5°
hot_thin	3.424	145.5	27.5°
storm	4.699	199.6	31.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.9°
rear sweep	41.5°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	41.7 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.83
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 3a9a12eda70c

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.159 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.6% better
scenario mean	3.795 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.726 Wh/km
frame mass	83.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 39 via crossover

hypothesisRecombine two selected parents: their strengths may be complementary. Parents: 926020 (6.14) and b520f6 Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: deck gap 40.9 mm (was deck gap 40.2 mm), arm width ×0.75 (was arm width ×0.75), plate width ×1.02 (was plate width ×1.02), arm length ×0.86 (was arm length ×0.85).

resultAggregate 6.159 Wh/km. Best-so-far was 6.113 -- no improvement. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.249	138.0	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.926	166.8	38.1°
crosswind	3.775	160.4	33.2°
gusty_light	3.631	154.3	32.2°
hot_thin	3.464	147.2	27.3°
storm	4.726	200.8	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.86
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.7°
rear sweep	41.8°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	40.9 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 5dcb419e3690

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.173 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.4% better
scenario mean	3.804 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.737 Wh/km
frame mass	84.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 39 via crossover

hypothesisRecombine two selected parents: their strengths may be complementary. Parents: 926020 (6.14) and d08641 (6.16) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: deck gap 42.7 mm (was deck gap 40.2 mm), arm length ×0.89 (was arm length ×0.85), plate width ×1.03 (was plate width ×1.02), front sweep 37.3° (was front sweep 37.7°).

resultAggregate 6.173 Wh/km. Best-so-far was 6.113 -- no improvement. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.257	138.4	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.931	167.0	38.2°
crosswind	3.787	160.9	33.2°
gusty_light	3.641	154.7	32.2°
hot_thin	3.473	147.6	27.3°
storm	4.737	201.3	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.89
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.3°
rear sweep	41.9°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	42.7 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 03b32f3eab46

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.192 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.1% better
scenario mean	3.816 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.752 Wh/km
frame mass	85.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 39 via crossover

hypothesisRecombine two selected parents: their strengths may be complementary. Parents: f0383d (6.13) and ec81aa (6.13) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: arm thickness 4.4 mm (was arm thickness 4.0 mm), plate width ×1.00 (was plate width ×1.02), arm length ×0.81 (was arm length ×0.82).

resultAggregate 6.192 Wh/km. Best-so-far was 6.113 -- no improvement. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.266	138.7	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.945	167.6	38.1°
crosswind	3.796	161.3	33.1°
gusty_light	3.651	155.1	32.1°
hot_thin	3.483	148.0	27.3°
storm	4.752	201.9	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.81
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.4 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.7°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	40.9 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate ba3335941d8f✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.195 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.0% better
scenario mean	3.817 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.757 Wh/km
frame mass	79.7 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 39 via designer

hypothesisHeadless-Claude design hypothesis (see designer_log.md).

methodGenome: arm length ×0.83, arm width ×0.78, arm waist ×0.60, arm thickness 4.8 mm.

resultAggregate 6.195 Wh/km. Best-so-far was 6.113 -- no improvement. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.241	137.7	25.6°
cold_headwind	3.977	168.9	39.0°
crosswind	3.814	162.0	34.0°
gusty_light	3.650	155.1	32.7°
hot_thin	3.461	147.0	27.6°
storm	4.757	202.1	32.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	45.0°
plate length	×1.15
plate width	×1.15
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.83
material	pa12_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 949d42134462✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.195 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.0% better
scenario mean	3.818 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.754 Wh/km
frame mass	79.6 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 39 via designer

hypothesisHeadless-Claude design hypothesis (see designer_log.md).

methodGenome: arm length ×0.83, arm width ×0.75, arm waist ×0.65, arm thickness 5.2 mm.

resultAggregate 6.195 Wh/km. Best-so-far was 6.113 -- no improvement. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.252	138.2	25.6°
cold_headwind	3.974	168.8	38.9°
crosswind	3.813	162.0	33.8°
gusty_light	3.651	155.1	32.7°
hot_thin	3.468	147.3	27.6°
storm	4.754	202.0	32.0°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.65
arm thickness	5.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	45.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.83
material	pa12_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 7d43a417f1f2

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.219 Wh/km
vs baseline	9.7% better
scenario mean	3.833 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.772 Wh/km
frame mass	87.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 39 via mutation

hypothesisLocal perturbation of a selected parent to probe its neighborhood. Parents: 646a06 (6.20) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: front sweep 36.7° (was front sweep 36.1°), arm waist ×0.57 (was arm waist ×0.55), material 0.12 (was material 0.09), plate length ×1.05 (was plate length ×1.04).

resultAggregate 6.219 Wh/km. Best-so-far was 6.113 -- no improvement. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.281	139.4	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.961	168.3	38.0°
crosswind	3.814	162.0	33.1°
gusty_light	3.668	155.8	32.1°
hot_thin	3.499	148.6	27.3°
storm	4.772	202.7	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.81
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.4 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.7°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	39.0 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 639b97e47509

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	76.4 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 39 via crossover

hypothesisRecombine two selected parents: their strengths may be complementary. Parents: ca8834 (6.11) and da4458 (6.11) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: rear sweep 39.6° (was rear sweep 42.0°), arm waist ×0.63 (was arm waist ×0.60), arm thickness 5.0 mm (was arm thickness 4.8 mm), material 0.28 (was material 0.25).

resultINVALID -- rotor disks overlap (tip clearance). The design never flew; the constraint itself is the learning.

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.63
arm thickness	5.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	39.6°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.82
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate dffe97e19dd9

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	81.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 39 via crossover

hypothesisRecombine two selected parents: their strengths may be complementary. Parents: ec81aa (6.13) and d08641 (6.16) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: arm waist ×0.63 (was arm waist ×0.55), front sweep 34.8° (was front sweep 36.0°), arm length ×0.77 (was arm length ×0.81), plate width ×1.02 (was plate width ×1.02).

resultINVALID -- rotor disks overlap (tip clearance). The design never flew; the constraint itself is the learning.

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.77
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.63
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.8°
rear sweep	41.9°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	40.8 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a07db56c3819✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (petg)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	87.7 g
material	petg
born	generation 39 via designer

hypothesisHeadless-Claude design hypothesis (see designer_log.md).

methodGenome: arm length ×0.83, arm width ×0.78, arm waist ×0.60, arm thickness 5.5 mm.

resultINVALID -- arm tip deflection (petg). The design never flew; the constraint itself is the learning.

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	5.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	petg

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 0166abd4d36e

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.115 Wh/km
vs baseline	11.2% better
scenario mean	3.768 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.693 Wh/km
frame mass	74.4 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 38 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the reigning best-so-far ca88346c95ae (6.113) with 4d5a5ecbbe0d (6.14) bets that borrowing a slightly wider arm and tighter deck gap from the weaker parent could push the champion's design even further.

methodWidened the arms very slightly, tightened the deck gap by half a millimeter, and nudged the material blend ratio marginally, keeping the champion's plate geometry intact.

resultLanded at 6.115, essentially matching the 6.113 champion but not quite beating it — the closest near-miss of the generation, confirming the champion's layout is near a local peak. Worth testing: try tightening the deck gap alone without the arm-width change, since that combination came within noise of a new record.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.209	136.3	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.913	166.2	38.6°
crosswind	3.762	159.8	33.6°
gusty_light	3.605	153.2	32.4°
hot_thin	3.425	145.5	27.5°
storm	4.693	199.4	30.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	42.1°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	39.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.82
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate ec81aaaf05c6new best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.131 Wh/km
vs baseline	11.0% better
scenario mean	3.778 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.705 Wh/km
frame mass	81.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 36 via mutation

hypothesisChampion b5fd89cd1e22 (6.144) already looked near-optimal, so the bet was a small, low-risk mutation — fine-trimming arm length, deck gap, and material mix — rather than a bold redesign.

methodShortened arm length slightly from ×0.83 to ×0.81, opened deck gap by 1mm to 41.0mm, and reduced the material blend parameter from 0.05 to 0.02.

result6.131 — a NEW WINNER, beating the prior best of 6.144. Every scenario improved a touch (calm_warm 3.23, storm 4.71), confirming the champion's core layout was sound and only needed fine trimming. This small nudge succeeded where several bolder pivots this generation failed outright or regressed. Next: push the material parameter even lower toward 0.0 to see if the trend continues before hitting a structural floor.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.234	137.4	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.903	165.8	38.0°
crosswind	3.763	159.9	33.0°
gusty_light	3.617	153.7	32.1°
hot_thin	3.450	146.6	27.3°
storm	4.705	199.9	29.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.81
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	41.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate f0383d09886a

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.133 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.9% better
scenario mean	3.780 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.706 Wh/km
frame mass	81.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 38 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents (4d5a5ecbbe0d, d0f89ce2aa6f) sit at the 6.14 plateau; this cross bets that combining a slightly shorter, thinner plate with slightly shorter arms and a touch more waist pinch can trim excess mass without breaking clearance.

methodShortened the main plate slightly, thinned it further, shortened the arms a touch, and pinched the arm waist marginally more.

resultA clear improvement to 6.133, beating both 6.14 parents and coming closer than almost anything else this generation to the 6.113 leader, though still short of a new record. This confirms the mass-trimming direction (shorter plate + arms) is productive; worth testing: push plate thickness down further from this exact design to see if it can cross under 6.113.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.240	137.7	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.901	165.7	37.8°
crosswind	3.759	159.7	32.9°
gusty_light	3.618	153.7	32.0°
hot_thin	3.455	146.8	27.2°
storm	4.706	199.9	29.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.82
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.7°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	40.9 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 9260206b6ee5

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.143 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.8% better
scenario mean	3.786 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.713 Wh/km
frame mass	82.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 38 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents (4d5a5ecbbe0d, d0f89ce2aa6f) sit at 6.14, a common plateau point; this cross bets that lengthening the arms slightly and tightening the deck gap could trade a bit of mass for better load spread.

methodLengthened the arms slightly, tightened the deck gap by about 0.7mm, and trimmed rear sweep by 0.2°, keeping arm width fixed.

resultCame in at 6.143, essentially flat with (marginally worse than) both 6.14 parents and nowhere near the 6.113 leader — the longer arms added mass without a compensating benefit. Worth testing: shorten arms back toward parent length while keeping the tighter deck gap, to isolate which change actually helped.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.245	137.9	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.906	166.0	37.9°
crosswind	3.769	160.1	33.1°
gusty_light	3.624	154.0	32.1°
hot_thin	3.460	147.0	27.3°
storm	4.713	200.2	29.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.85
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.7°
rear sweep	41.8°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	40.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 16ea95b31b16

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.144 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.8% better
scenario mean	3.787 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.714 Wh/km
frame mass	82.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 38 via crossover

hypothesisCombining 4d5a5ecbbe0d (6.14) with ec81aaaf05c6 (6.131) bets that the latter's narrower deck gap could improve on the former's baseline while keeping its plate geometry.

methodTightened the deck gap by about 1.2mm and widened the arms very slightly, with plate length essentially unchanged.

resultFinished at 6.144, statistically indistinguishable from both parents and short of the 6.113 leader — the deck-gap tightening didn't translate into a measurable win here. Worth testing: this deck-gap/arm-width combo seems saturated; try it against a leaner-plate parent instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.244	137.8	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.907	166.0	37.9°
crosswind	3.769	160.1	33.0°
gusty_light	3.625	154.0	32.0°
hot_thin	3.460	147.0	27.3°
storm	4.714	200.3	29.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.7°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	39.7 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d08641cae373

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.159 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.6% better
scenario mean	3.797 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.725 Wh/km
frame mass	82.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 38 via crossover

hypothesis7a4cfa76b20b (6.154) trails the pack; crossing with d0f89ce2aa6f (6.14) bets that narrowing the arms and widening front sweep could combine the better traits of each parent.

methodNarrowed the arms slightly and increased front sweep by about half a degree, keeping plate width essentially at the stronger parent's value.

resultCame in at 6.159, worse than both parents — the added front sweep likely increased drag or structural loading enough to offset the narrower arms' mass savings, visible in the already-costly storm scenario (4.72). Worth testing: keep the narrower arms but leave front sweep at the stronger parent's original value.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.257	138.4	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.922	166.6	38.1°
crosswind	3.775	160.4	33.1°
gusty_light	3.633	154.3	32.2°
hot_thin	3.470	147.4	27.3°
storm	4.725	200.7	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	41.8°
rear sweep	43.9°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.04
deck gap	39.9 mm
battery wedge	0.5°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 79c5e250a588

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.169 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.4% better
scenario mean	3.802 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.733 Wh/km
frame mass	84.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 38 via crossover

hypothesisParents d0f89ce2aa6f (6.14) and 07256a73c70a (6.184) both sit on the plateau just above the leading pack; this cross bets that stacking a slightly wider, thinner deck plate with a touch of battery tilt from the weaker parent can recover some of the stronger parent's edge.

methodWidened the deck plate slightly, thinned it further, and added a small forward battery wedge that neither parent carried at that setting.

resultLanded at 6.169 — worse than the stronger parent (6.14) and not a new record; the extra wedge combined with a thinner plate likely cost stiffness in storm (4.73, the worst scenario), where inertial loads punish thin webs most. Worth testing: keep the wider plate but drop the wedge back to 0° to isolate whether wedge or thickness is the drag.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.256	138.3	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.924	166.7	37.9°
crosswind	3.787	160.9	33.1°
gusty_light	3.640	154.6	32.1°
hot_thin	3.473	147.5	27.3°
storm	4.733	201.1	29.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.4°
rear sweep	42.3°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	39.3 mm
battery wedge	0.7°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 646a06905c29

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.199 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.0% better
scenario mean	3.821 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.757 Wh/km
frame mass	87.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 38 via crossover

hypothesisb30ff77c67b3 (6.209) is a weak performer; crossing it with the stronger d0f89ce2aa6f (6.14) bets that inheriting the stronger parent's shorter arms can pull the weak lineage back toward competitiveness.

methodShortened the arms very slightly and kept the thicker 4.4mm arm cross-section from the weak parent, otherwise taking plate geometry from the stronger parent.

resultReached 6.199 — a solid improvement over the weak parent (6.209) but still well short of the strong parent (6.14) and the 6.113 leader, meaning the thicker arm carried over more penalty than benefit. Worth testing: drop arm thickness back toward the strong parent's likely thinner value to see if that closes the remaining gap.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.274	139.1	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.942	167.5	37.8°
crosswind	3.805	161.6	33.0°
gusty_light	3.658	155.4	32.0°
hot_thin	3.491	148.3	27.3°
storm	4.757	202.1	29.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.82
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.4 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	42.1°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	39.0 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 9ebdf15fa1b3

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.201 Wh/km
vs baseline	9.9% better
scenario mean	3.822 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.758 Wh/km
frame mass	85.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 38 via mutation

hypothesise6224bd7bd8e (6.207) is trailing the pack; the bet is that trimming plate length and deck gap while thinning the deck slightly can shave enough mass to close the gap to the leaders.

methodShortened the main plate slightly, tightened the deck gap by about a millimeter, and thinned the plate a touch more while nudging plate width down fractionally.

resultImproved marginally to 6.201 from 6.207, but still nearly a full point off the 6.113 best-so-far — small plate trims aren't enough to close that gap. Worth testing: this lineage likely needs a bigger structural change (arm width or waist) rather than incremental plate trims, or should be deprioritized in favor of stronger parent lines.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.275	139.1	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.952	167.9	38.2°
crosswind	3.801	161.5	33.2°
gusty_light	3.656	155.3	32.2°
hot_thin	3.491	148.3	27.4°
storm	4.758	202.1	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.89
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.63
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.9°
rear sweep	40.8°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	41.5 mm
battery wedge	1.7°
plate thickness	×0.74
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate c2194cd7082c

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	83.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 38 via crossover

hypothesisec81aaaf05c6 (6.131) is a strong performer with narrow arms; self-pairing it bets that adding battery wedge and widening the arms/waist could unlock a stiffer airframe without another parent's compromises.

methodAdded forward battery tilt, widened the arms and their waist pinch, and lengthened the main plate — all increases with no compensating arm-length increase.

resultInvalid — rotor disks overlap at the tips. Widening the arms while keeping them short brings the propeller discs too close together; this confirms arm width and arm length are coupled constraints in this geometry and can't be tuned independently. Worth testing: pair any arm-width increase with a matching arm-length increase (or reduced sweep) to preserve tip clearance.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.59
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.5°
rear sweep	42.1°
plate length	×1.06
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	41.0 mm
battery wedge	1.6°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 8fca3fafec84

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	85.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 38 via crossover

hypothesisOne parent (979d78592857) was already invalid and the other (ec81aaaf05c6, 6.131) is a solid performer; the bet is that blending in a different material and slightly thicker arms from the failed parent might still yield a viable, competitive frame.

methodSwitched the material blend, thickened the arms slightly, added more forward battery wedge, and pulled both front and rear sweep noticeably wider.

resultInvalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate. The wider sweep angles inherited from the failed parent shifted the arm-tongue bolt holes off the plate's bolt pattern; this is a fabrication-geometry constraint, not an aerodynamic one. Worth testing: keep the material/thickness change but revert sweep angles to the viable parent's values to preserve bolt alignment.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	39.2°
rear sweep	43.3°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	0.7°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate e4629c493eda

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.52 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	121.3 g
material	pla_plus
born	generation 38 via crossover

hypothesisOne parent (97da84bc1788) was already invalid, but crossing with the reigning best-so-far ca88346c95ae (6.113) bets that its strong genes could rescue a fundamentally different, high-battery-wedge design built around a bulkier frame.

methodTightened the deck gap, slightly reduced battery wedge and arm waist, and bumped plate thickness marginally — all within an already thick-plate, high-wedge, wide-arm-waist design.

resultInvalid — the plate web comes out too thin (1.52mm vs. 1.90mm stock) despite a 1.37x thickness multiplier, because the narrower plate width shrinks the actual load-bearing web faster than the multiplier compensates. This shows thickness ratios alone don't guarantee minimum wall thickness once plate width shrinks too far. Worth testing: raise plate width, or add a floor constraint on absolute web thickness before letting width shrink this much.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.97
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×1.02
arm thickness	6.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	41.6°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×0.87
deck gap	24.5 mm
battery wedge	10.1°
plate thickness	×1.37
material	pla_plus

parents

candidate 394f794f199d

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	129.2 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 38 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents (8ab6b6f87a10, db7cbd66a195) were already invalid, likely from the same aggressive high-wedge, wide-arm-waist family as e4629c493eda; this cross bets that trimming plate length and wedge angle slightly could pull the design back into valid territory.

methodShortened plate length, reduced battery wedge by about a degree, tightened deck gap slightly, and nudged plate thickness up fractionally.

resultStill invalid — the plate web comes out far too thin (0.91mm vs. 1.90mm stock), an even worse failure than e4629c493eda's, confirming this entire branch (thick nominal multiplier, narrow actual plate, aggressive wedge) is structurally unviable regardless of small tweaks. Worth testing: abandon incremental tuning here and instead widen the plate substantially or drop the aggressive battery wedge driving the design into this corner.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.92
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.97
arm thickness	6.7 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	43.7°
rear sweep	49.8°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×0.94
deck gap	36.0 mm
battery wedge	12.2°
plate thickness	×1.43
material	pet_cf

parents

candidate b520f60f597a

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	81.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 38 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing 4d5a5ecbbe0d (6.14) with the champion ca88346c95ae (6.113) bets that adopting the champion's plate proportions on a shorter-armed frame could trim mass further.

methodShortened the arms substantially, brought plate width back to baseline, thinned the plate, and widened the deck gap.

resultInvalid — rotor disks overlap at the tips. Cutting arm length that aggressively without also narrowing arm width or increasing sweep closes the tip clearance margin, echoing c2194cd7082c's failure. Worth testing: pair short arms with reduced arm width or waist pinch, since this generation shows arm length and width can't shrink and grow independently near this clearance boundary.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.75
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.5°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	41.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 4d5a5ecbbe0d

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.140 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.8% better
scenario mean	3.784 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.711 Wh/km
frame mass	82.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 37 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents were competitive in the low 6.1s; opening the front sweep and dropping to a pure single material tested whether cleaner geometry plus more electronics clearance could trim losses.

methodWidened front sweep from 36.0° to 37.7°, zeroed out the material blend (pure primary material, no secondary mix), and opened the deck gap slightly to 40.9mm.

resultLanded at 6.14, an improvement over the weaker parent but not the stronger one, and still short of the 6.113 best-so-far. Its per-scenario profile tracks almost identically to sibling d0f89ce2aa6f, suggesting geometry (not material blend) is what's driving the fitness landscape here. Worth testing next: lock material at 0.00 across future crosses to isolate whether sweep or deck-gap changes are the real lever.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.243	137.8	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.907	166.0	37.9°
crosswind	3.764	159.9	33.1°
gusty_light	3.622	153.9	32.1°
hot_thin	3.458	146.9	27.3°
storm	4.711	200.2	29.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.7°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	40.9 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d0f89ce2aa6f

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.140 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.8% better
scenario mean	3.784 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.712 Wh/km
frame mass	82.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 37 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents sat around 6.15-6.16; a slightly smaller, lighter footprint was tried to see if trimming plate and arm mass could shave the drag/mass penalty across the adverse scenarios.

methodShrank the plate-length stretch from 6% to 3%, tightened arm width slightly, and nudged rear sweep up a touch to 42.4°.

resultImproved to 6.14 Wh/km, beating both parents, but it did not become the new best-so-far (6.113). Storm remained the worst scenario at 4.71, suggesting these trims help average-condition efficiency more than storm robustness. Worth testing next: combine this lighter footprint with a storm-favoring arm-thickness bump from the CD_ARM lineage.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.242	137.7	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.903	165.8	37.9°
crosswind	3.767	160.0	33.0°
gusty_light	3.623	153.9	32.0°
hot_thin	3.458	146.9	27.2°
storm	4.712	200.2	29.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.4°
rear sweep	42.4°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	39.3 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 7a4cfa76b20b

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.154 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.6% better
scenario mean	3.794 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.721 Wh/km
frame mass	82.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 37 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents were close performers near 6.15-6.16; small joint tweaks to battery tilt, sweep, deck gap, and plate thickness tested whether fine blending could nudge past them without a structural redesign.

methodTilted the battery wedge to 0.5°, pulled front sweep in from 42.0° to 41.4°, tightened deck gap marginally to 39.9mm, and thinned the plate fractionally.

resultLanded at 6.154, essentially matching parent 4a0fbfe92906 exactly and not beating the 6.113 best-so-far. The small joint tweaks were fitness-neutral, suggesting this region of gene space is fairly flat. Worth testing next: try a bigger single-gene jump, like arm waist or thickness, from this genome instead of more micro-blending.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.256	138.3	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.916	166.3	38.0°
crosswind	3.772	160.2	33.1°
gusty_light	3.630	154.2	32.1°
hot_thin	3.469	147.4	27.3°
storm	4.721	200.6	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	41.4°
rear sweep	43.8°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.04
deck gap	39.9 mm
battery wedge	0.5°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 07256a73c70a

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.184 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.2% better
scenario mean	3.811 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.745 Wh/km
frame mass	85.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 37 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the reigning best-so-far (ca88346c95ae, 6.113) with a strong runner-up hoped to graft its traits onto the champion's efficient base without losing ground.

methodIncreased plate thickness from a 30% to a 25% reduction and stretched arm length slightly longer.

resultFitness worsened to 6.184, underperforming both parents and well off the 6.113 best-so-far. The extra plate mass and longer arms added cost in every scenario with no compensating gain, showing the champion's leaner plate and shorter arm are already near a local optimum. Worth testing next: revert plate thickness toward the leaner value while keeping the rest of the champion's genome intact.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.261	138.5	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.938	167.3	38.0°
crosswind	3.797	161.3	33.2°
gusty_light	3.648	155.0	32.1°
hot_thin	3.478	147.8	27.3°
storm	4.745	201.6	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.85
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.1°
plate length	×1.06
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate e6224bd7bd8e

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.207 Wh/km
vs baseline	9.9% better
scenario mean	3.826 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.763 Wh/km
frame mass	86.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 37 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents were weaker performers around 6.2; shifting toward pure material and a stronger battery tilt tested whether this could recover ground lost to this lineage's wider arm waist.

methodShifted the material blend down toward pure primary, increased battery wedge from 0.6° to 1.7°, and pulled both sweep angles in slightly.

resultEdged up to 6.207, a marginal gain over both parents but still well behind the 6.113 best-so-far, with storm remaining the costliest scenario (4.76). This lineage's wider arm waist (0.63x vs. the leaner 0.55x seen in top performers) looks like the real ceiling, not the material/wedge/sweep tweaks tried here. Worth testing next: cross this line with a leaner arm-waist genome to see if narrowing the waist closes the gap to the leaders.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.274	139.1	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.958	168.2	38.3°
crosswind	3.810	161.8	33.3°
gusty_light	3.660	155.5	32.3°
hot_thin	3.490	148.3	27.4°
storm	4.763	202.3	29.8°

gene	value
arm length	×0.88
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.63
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.9°
rear sweep	40.8°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	42.4 mm
battery wedge	1.7°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b30ff77c67b3

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.209 Wh/km
vs baseline	9.8% better
scenario mean	3.827 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.765 Wh/km
frame mass	87.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 37 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the champion (ca88346c95ae, 6.113) with a strong peer hoped a thicker, more storm-robust arm plus a tighter deck gap and shorter plate would trim mass while preserving stiffness.

methodThickened arms from 4.0mm to 4.4mm, tightened deck gap from 40.0mm to 38.9mm, nudged material blend to 0.09, and shortened the plate-length stretch to 4%.

resultFitness fell to 6.209, worse than both parents and further from the 6.113 best-so-far — every scenario cost more, including storm (4.76), so the added arm mass wasn't offset by the deck-gap or plate savings. This suggests the champion's 4.0mm arm thickness is already near-optimal, and thickening it further is a net loss. Worth testing next: mutate arm thickness alone on the champion to map its local sensitivity before combining it with other changes.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.276	139.2	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.953	167.9	38.1°
crosswind	3.810	161.9	33.1°
gusty_light	3.662	155.6	32.2°
hot_thin	3.494	148.4	27.3°
storm	4.765	202.4	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.4 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.1°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	38.9 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate db7cbd66a195

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	81.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 37 via crossover

hypothesisParent 1a8724bc0df6 (6.156) was a solid mid-pack frame; pairing it with unevaluated sibling 2a076adeeffe bet that blending plate proportions and material ratio might open a new efficiency pocket.

methodTrimmed plate width slightly, shifted the material blend from 0.05 toward 0.15, pulled plate length in from a 6% to a 4% stretch, and doubled the battery wedge tilt to 0.8°.

resultInvalid: the arm tongue bolts miss the main plate. Shrinking plate length/width while inheriting arm-root positions from the parents desynced the bolt pattern from the plate footprint. Worth testing next: treat plate footprint and arm-mount offsets as a linked block during crossover instead of blending them independently.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.84
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.5°
rear sweep	42.5°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	39.5 mm
battery wedge	0.8°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 17dc0583bfae

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	125.5 g
material	asa
born	generation 37 via immigrant

hypothesisAn immigrant injected fresh diversity outside the elite lineage, betting a stouter, thick-armed frame with a steep battery wedge might find an unexplored efficiency pocket now that the population has plateaued around 6.1-6.2.

methodRandomly generated genome: arms lengthened and thickened to 6.7mm, plate enlarged substantially, deck gap compressed to 20.3mm, battery wedge tilted 8.1°, switched to ASA plastic.

resultInvalid: deck gap too small for the FC/ESC stack. Compressing the deck gap to 20.3mm left no room for the electronics package. This confirms deck gap has a hard floor tied to the electronics envelope, independent of other traits. Worth testing next: constrain the immigrant sampler's deck-gap floor to the ~38-42mm range the elite population already occupies.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×1.05
arm thickness	6.7 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.5°
rear sweep	47.4°
plate length	×1.29
plate width	×1.16
deck gap	20.3 mm
battery wedge	8.1°
plate thickness	×1.22
material	asa

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 979d78592857

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	83.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 37 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents sat around 6.15-6.16; widening both front and rear sweep together bet that a more splayed arm stance could cut yaw-correction losses in gusty and crosswind conditions.

methodWidened front sweep from 36.0° to 39.3° and rear sweep from 42.1° to 43.2°, widened arm width slightly, and shifted the material blend to 0.13.

resultInvalid: the arm tongue bolts miss the main plate, the same failure as db7cbd66a195, this time triggered by pushing both sweep angles wide at once without compensating the plate mount points. This reinforces that sweep changes need matching plate/mount adjustments to stay bolt-compatible. Worth testing next: cap the combined front+rear sweep delta per crossover, or add a repair step that re-centers arm tongues after sweep mutation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	39.3°
rear sweep	43.2°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 099b579302c5

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	81.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 37 via mutation

hypothesisParent ec81aaaf05c6 (6.131) was a strong performer; shortening the arms further bet on shaving mass and drag while a thicker plate compensated for lost stiffness.

methodShortened arm length further and thickened the plate from a 30% to a 26% reduction.

resultInvalid: rotor disks overlap on tip clearance. Shortening the arms without widening rotor spacing pushed the propeller disks into each other, marking a lower bound on arm length for this rotor configuration. Worth testing next: pair any further arm-length shrink with a compensating waist/width increase, checked against current prop diameter.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.77
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	41.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.74
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 8ab6b6f87a10

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	126.3 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 37 via immigrant

hypothesisAnother immigrant sought outside diversity, betting a more compact plate footprint combined with thick 6.7mm arms and a steep 13.1° battery wedge could unlock an aggressive weight-forward layout.

methodRandomly generated genome: arms at moderate length but wider and 6.7mm thick; plate shrunk in both length and width; deck gap 36.5mm; battery wedge 13.1°; switched to pet_cf material.

resultInvalid: plate web too thin (0.87mm vs a 1.90mm stock minimum). Shrinking the plate footprint without scaling thickness and material together left the structural web below the manufacturable minimum. Worth testing next: add a plate-web-thickness pre-check to the immigrant sampler so infeasible footprint/thickness/material combos are rejected before evaluation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.93
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.98
arm thickness	6.7 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	44.0°
rear sweep	49.9°
plate length	×0.90
plate width	×0.94
deck gap	36.5 mm
battery wedge	13.1°
plate thickness	×1.42
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 19f9d20d2d03

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	83.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 37 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents performed well (6.13-6.16); pulling rear sweep in sharply and widening the arm waist bet that a tighter rear stance could reduce yaw-correction losses in gusty and crosswind scenarios.

methodPulled rear sweep in from 42.1° to 39.3°, trimmed plate width slightly, widened the arm waist, and increased battery wedge to 1.1°.

resultInvalid: rotor disks overlap on tip clearance, the same failure as 099b579302c5, here triggered by narrowing rear sweep rather than shortening arm length. This shows rotor clearance is just as sensitive to sweep-angle changes as to arm length, since a tighter sweep pulls prop centers closer together. Worth testing next: define a minimum combined sweep-plus-arm-length envelope that keeps rotor tip clearance safe, and check crossovers against it before evaluation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.5°
rear sweep	39.3°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	40.1 mm
battery wedge	1.1°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 62ae7f8034b1

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	83.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 37 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents were strong (6.13-6.14); widening the arm slightly while thickening the plate bet on more structural margin for storm conditions without giving up much of the compact frame's efficiency.

methodWidened arm width slightly, thickened the plate from a 30% to a 26% reduction, and shortened arm length marginally.

resultInvalid: rotor disks overlap on tip clearance, a third instance of this failure mode this generation, here from combining a shorter arm with a wider arm together, which pulls rotor centers too close. This generation's short-arm lineage clearly sits right at the tip-clearance boundary, so any further shortening or widening tips it over. Worth testing next: add tip-clearance as an explicit check the crossover operator runs before committing arm length/width combinations from this lineage.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.1°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	40.9 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.74
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 97da84bc1788

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.15 mm, stock 1.47 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	121.9 g
material	pla_plus
born	generation 37 via immigrant

hypothesisA third immigrant this generation tested whether a longer, narrower-plate layout with thick 6.6mm arms and a different material could find an efficiency pocket outside the CF-plate elite lineage.

methodRandomly generated genome: arms moderately long and thick (6.6mm); plate stretched in length but narrowed in width; deck gap 25.6mm; battery wedge 10.8°; material switched to pla_plus.

resultInvalid: plate web too thin (1.15mm vs a 1.47mm stock minimum for pla_plus) — the third distinct manufacturability failure among this generation's three immigrants (bolt-miss, deck-gap, and now web-thickness twice). The pattern shows the random sampler is generating structurally infeasible plate/material combos far more often than the elite crossover lineage. Worth testing next: bias the immigrant sampler's plate-width/thickness/material joint distribution toward historically feasible combinations rather than sampling each gene independently.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.98
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×1.03
arm thickness	6.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.9°
rear sweep	41.6°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×0.87
deck gap	25.6 mm
battery wedge	10.8°
plate thickness	×1.36
material	pla_plus

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate b5fd89cd1e22new best when evaluated✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.144 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.8% better
scenario mean	3.786 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.716 Wh/km
frame mass	81.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 24 via designer

hypothesisBuilding directly on the near-miss above, the designer bet that shortening the arm further while widening the deck gap to preserve rotor clearance could cross the threshold the crossovers couldn't reach.

methodShortened arm length to ×0.83 (from ×0.90), kept the thin 4.0mm arm and ×0.75 arm width, opened deck gap to 40.0mm — the widest this generation — and reverted plate thickness to the ×0.70 baseline.

result6.144 — a NEW WINNER, beating the prior best-so-far (6.165) and every other candidate this generation, with every scenario improved including storm (down to 4.72). The shorter arm plus generously widened deck gap sidestepped the tip-clearance failures that killed several crossovers this generation while still capturing the mass savings of a shorter arm. Worth testing: pair this new champion's arm-length/deck-gap recipe with the ×0.85 plate thickness from the prior designer probe to see if the two independent wins stack.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.240	137.6	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.912	166.2	37.9°
crosswind	3.770	160.2	33.0°
gusty_light	3.625	154.0	32.1°
hot_thin	3.456	146.8	27.3°
storm	4.716	200.3	29.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 4a0fbfe92906

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.154 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.6% better
scenario mean	3.794 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.721 Wh/km
frame mass	83.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 34 via crossover

hypothesisRecombine two selected parents: their strengths may be complementary. Parents: 2d9fa0 (6.17) and 2d9fa0 (6.17) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: material 0.07 (was material 0.00), rear sweep 43.7° (was rear sweep 42.7°), plate width ×1.04 (was plate width ×1.03), arm width ×0.77 (was arm width ×0.78).

resultAggregate 6.154 Wh/km. Best-so-far was 6.144 -- no improvement. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.255	138.3	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.914	166.3	38.0°
crosswind	3.773	160.3	33.1°
gusty_light	3.630	154.2	32.1°
hot_thin	3.469	147.4	27.3°
storm	4.721	200.6	29.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	42.0°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.04
deck gap	40.4 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 1a8724bc0df6

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.156 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.6% better
scenario mean	3.794 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.725 Wh/km
frame mass	83.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 36 via crossover

hypothesisTwo closely-matched parents (6.157 and 6.154) offered little room for a big swing, so the bet was a near-identical blend testing only whether a small battery tilt adds value.

methodKept nearly all genes from the parent lineage unchanged and added a small 0.4° battery wedge.

result6.156, landing right between the two parents' fitness — essentially a wash. The tiny battery tilt neither helped nor hurt meaningfully. Teaches battery wedge near 0° is already close to optimal for this arm/plate configuration. Next: since this offspring barely differs from its parents, try a more differentiated crossover split (e.g. plate genes from one parent, arm genes from the other) to actually explore new territory.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.246	137.9	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.924	166.7	38.0°
crosswind	3.776	160.4	33.2°
gusty_light	3.630	154.2	32.2°
hot_thin	3.462	147.1	27.3°
storm	4.725	200.7	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.1°
plate length	×1.06
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b321f6c217f5

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.159 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.6% better
scenario mean	3.795 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.726 Wh/km
frame mass	83.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 36 via pivot

hypothesisChampion b5fd89cd1e22 (6.144) was the best target for refinement; the bet was that tightening the deck gap to shrink the frame's footprint, with small rigidity compensations, would trim mass further.

methodClosed deck gap from 40.0mm to 37.0mm, thickened plate slightly to ×0.75, fattened arm waist marginally to ×0.58, and lengthened plate fractionally.

result6.159, close to but worse than the 6.144 champion. The tighter deck gap likely saved a little mass, but the plate-thickness increase probably offset it, netting a small loss across every scenario. Teaches deck-gap tightening has upside only if paired with a thickness cut, not an increase. Next: retry the 37mm deck gap with plate thickness held unchanged at ×0.70, to isolate the deck-gap effect on its own.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.250	138.1	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.917	166.4	38.0°
crosswind	3.778	160.5	33.1°
gusty_light	3.633	154.4	32.1°
hot_thin	3.467	147.3	27.3°
storm	4.726	200.8	29.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.8°
rear sweep	41.6°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	37.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 8da55bcaa280

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.159 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.6% better
scenario mean	3.796 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.727 Wh/km
frame mass	83.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 36 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing fitter parent 33ab77f283dd (6.157) with weaker a8359c6458ff (6.195), the bet was that blending arm width and deck gap traits might find a synergy better than either parent.

methodWidened arm width from ×0.75 to ×0.80, tightened deck gap from 40.0mm to 39.4mm, and opened front sweep slightly, otherwise inheriting the fitter parent's values.

result6.159, essentially matching the fitter parent (6.157) without improving on it, and well off the 6.144 champion. The crossover found no synergy — it just tracked the stronger parent. Teaches this particular arm-width/deck-gap combination is fitness-neutral. Next: cross 33ab77f283dd with the current champion b5fd89cd1e22 instead of a weaker parent, to see if blending with a stronger partner helps.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.250	138.1	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.919	166.5	37.9°
crosswind	3.779	160.5	33.1°
gusty_light	3.634	154.4	32.0°
hot_thin	3.467	147.3	27.3°
storm	4.727	200.8	29.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.4°
rear sweep	42.1°
plate length	×1.06
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	39.4 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 076e6be28b6a

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.188 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.1% better
scenario mean	3.814 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.748 Wh/km
frame mass	85.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 36 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing weaker a8359c6458ff (6.195) with stronger d28e201210a9 (6.157), the bet was that the stronger parent's base plus a material and battery-wedge nudge would pull the offspring toward the better parent.

methodRaised the material blend parameter from 0.05 to 0.10, stretched plate length slightly, increased battery wedge to 1.0°, and closed front sweep fractionally.

result6.188, better than the weaker parent (6.195) but well short of the stronger parent (6.157) and the 6.144 champion. The offspring regressed toward the weaker parent rather than capturing the stronger one's advantage. Teaches that crossing a weak and strong parent needs a larger gene share from the fitter side to actually improve on it. Next: bias future crossovers to inherit most genes from the fitter parent rather than splitting evenly.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.265	138.7	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.943	167.5	38.2°
crosswind	3.796	161.3	33.3°
gusty_light	3.649	155.0	32.2°
hot_thin	3.481	147.9	27.4°
storm	4.748	201.7	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.89
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.3°
rear sweep	42.6°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	42.2 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 4606597626b2

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.208 Wh/km
vs baseline	9.9% better
scenario mean	3.826 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.765 Wh/km
frame mass	87.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 36 via pivot

hypothesisIncumbent champion b5fd89cd1e22 (6.144) ran a lean, waisted arm; the bet was that a substantially fuller arm waist would add stiffness margin worth the extra mass, offset by shrinking and thickening the plate.

methodNearly doubled the arm waist fullness from ×0.55 to ×0.78, shrank plate length by ~9%, thickened the plate to ×0.78, and closed rear sweep to 39.8°.

result6.208, notably worse than the 6.144 champion it came from. The heavier waist and thicker plate likely added more mass than they saved in structural margin, and storm stayed flat at 4.76. Teaches the champion's lean ×0.55 waist was already close to optimal for this material. Next: test a more moderate waist bump (e.g. ×0.60–×0.65) without touching plate thickness, to isolate the waist effect alone.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.276	139.2	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.954	168.0	38.2°
crosswind	3.805	161.7	33.1°
gusty_light	3.661	155.5	32.2°
hot_thin	3.494	148.4	27.3°
storm	4.765	202.4	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.86
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.78
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.6°
rear sweep	39.8°
plate length	×0.93
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	41.9 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.78
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 39cf0e9274ce

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.208 Wh/km
vs baseline	9.8% better
scenario mean	3.827 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.763 Wh/km
frame mass	87.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 36 via pivot

hypothesisMid-pack parent 252b5daf7b18 (6.194) was carrying a relatively thin plate; the bet was that a modest plate-thickness increase for rigidity, paired with a slight width trim, would pay off in the harsher scenarios.

methodThinned the plate width from ×1.02 to ×0.99, thickened the plate from ×0.71 to ×0.75, opened front sweep slightly to 36.6°, and nudged arm width up marginally.

result6.208, worse than its parent (6.194) and well off the 6.144 best-so-far. Storm and crosswind stayed weak (4.76 / 3.81), suggesting the added plate mass from the thickness bump outweighed any rigidity benefit. Teaches that plate thickening trades against Wh/km faster than it buys structural margin here. Next: try the same width trim but with plate thickness held flat or reduced, to isolate the mass-saving effect.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.279	139.3	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.949	167.8	38.1°
crosswind	3.813	162.0	33.2°
gusty_light	3.663	155.6	32.2°
hot_thin	3.496	148.5	27.3°
storm	4.763	202.3	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.88
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.59
arm thickness	4.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.6°
rear sweep	41.8°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	42.0 mm
battery wedge	0.8°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 732583c1f8f1

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.209 Wh/km
vs baseline	9.8% better
scenario mean	3.827 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.765 Wh/km
frame mass	86.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 36 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing weaker 252b5daf7b18 (6.194) with stronger 33ab77f283dd (6.157), the bet was that widening the arm waist slightly would add stiffness margin worth keeping.

methodInherited mostly the weaker parent's geometry, with arm waist widened from ×0.58 to ×0.63 and deck gap essentially unchanged.

result6.209, the worst crossover result this generation — worse than both parents. The offspring drew too heavily on the weaker parent's sweep and plate dimensions, and the waist widening didn't compensate. Teaches this crossover pairing pulled from the wrong side of the gene pool. Next: weight crossover gene selection more explicitly toward the fitter parent rather than a near-even split.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.273	139.1	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.961	168.3	38.4°
crosswind	3.809	161.8	33.4°
gusty_light	3.661	155.5	32.3°
hot_thin	3.490	148.3	27.4°
storm	4.765	202.4	29.9°

gene	value
arm length	×0.88
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.63
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	41.8°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	42.4 mm
battery wedge	0.6°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 946804e7bf65

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	102.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 36 via pivot

hypothesisParent 4a0fbfe92906 (6.154) was competitive but its arms were thin (4.0mm); the bet was that beefing up arm thickness for stiffness, combined with a longer arm and a battery tilt to shift CG, could unlock further gains.

methodThickened arms from 4.0mm to 5.4mm, lengthened arms from ×0.83 to ×0.92, added a 3.5° battery wedge, and trimmed plate width slightly from ×1.04 to ×1.01.

resultInvalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate. Lengthening the arms while narrowing the plate pushed the arm's bolt-hole tongue past the plate edge. This is the second failure of this kind this generation, showing arm length and plate width need to move together, not opposite ways. Next: try the same arm-thickness bump but pair the longer arm with a wider (not narrower) plate to keep the bolt pattern registered.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.92
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	5.4 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	42.3°
rear sweep	43.9°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	39.7 mm
battery wedge	3.5°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 2a076adeeffe

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	80.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 36 via pivot

hypothesisParent 4a0fbfe92906 was steady at 6.154 with room to shed arm mass; the bet was that shortening the arms further, backed by a wider deck gap for clearance, would cut mass/drag without breaking geometry.

methodShortened arm length from ×0.83 to ×0.75, widened deck gap from 40.4mm to 41.6mm, opened front sweep slightly to 42.9°, and trimmed arm width marginally.

resultInvalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance). The arm shortening outpaced the deck-gap and sweep compensation, pulling rotor tips too close. Teaches that arm length below roughly ×0.80 needs a bigger sweep-angle spread than tried here to preserve clearance. Next: retry the shorter arm but widen the front/rear sweep spread further rather than relying on deck gap alone.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.75
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	42.9°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×1.04
deck gap	41.6 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 29c0da1fa718

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	68.8 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 36 via pivot

hypothesisSolid parent d28e201210a9 (6.157) was still on carbon plate; the bet was leaning into the lighter pa12_cf material blend with a slight battery tilt and thicker arms to undercut carbon-plate mass.

methodShifted the material blend further toward pa12_cf, tilted the battery 1.4°, thickened arms to 4.4mm, and thickened plates to ×0.76.

resultInvalid — plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5mm < 1.6mm minimum gauge). Even with the thickness bump the pa12_cf minimum-gauge floor wasn't cleared, eating into any hoped-for mass savings. Teaches pa12_cf pivots need plate thickness well above ×0.76 to satisfy the material's gauge constraint. Next: retry with plate thickness ×0.85 or higher under pa12_cf to clear the floor and see if it still beats cf_plate on mass.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.86
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.4 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	42.2°
rear sweep	44.1°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.04
deck gap	40.6 mm
battery wedge	1.4°
plate thickness	×0.76
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 19d586d76585

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	85.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 36 via pivot

hypothesisParent 4a0fbfe92906 was stable at 6.154; the bet was a stubbier, stiffer arm — wider and shorter — paired with a longer plate to see if a different geometry balance helped.

methodWidened arms from ×0.77 to ×0.86, shortened arm length from ×0.83 to ×0.77, stretched plate length from ×1.02 to ×1.07, and closed front sweep slightly.

resultInvalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate, the same failure mode as 946804e7bf65. Shortening the arm while stretching the plate again broke bolt-hole alignment. Teaches this genome region is fragile: arm length and plate length must move in the same direction to keep the tongue mount valid. Next: test arm length and plate length scaled together (both up or both down) instead of diverging.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.77
arm width	×0.86
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	40.7°
rear sweep	44.8°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.04
deck gap	41.1 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 571e89750b3b

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	83.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 36 via crossover

hypothesisSelf-crossing 33ab77f283dd (6.157) with itself amounted to a mutation probe, betting a tighter rear sweep and shorter plate would trim mass/drag without breaking geometry.

methodClosed rear sweep from 42.2° to 40.7°, shortened plate length from ×1.06 to ×1.04, and fattened arm waist slightly to ×0.58.

resultInvalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance), the same failure mode as 2a076adeeffe. Tightening rear sweep while shrinking plate length pulled the rear rotors too close together. Teaches rear sweep below roughly 41° combined with a shorter plate reliably violates tip clearance in this lineage. Next: if tightening rear sweep, hold plate length fixed or increase it to preserve rotor spacing.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	40.7°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 33ab77f283dd

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.157 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.6% better
scenario mean	3.794 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.725 Wh/km
frame mass	83.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 35 via crossover

hypothesisThis crossover directly involved the reigning champion b5fd89cd1e22 (6.144) paired with 25de790024cd (6.175), testing whether borrowing the second lineage's rear sweep could push the champion design even lower.

methodLengthened the plate by about 4% and nudged rear sweep up by 0.2 degrees relative to the champion.

resultValid at 6.157, close to but not beating best-so-far (6.144) - NOT a new winner, just 0.013 short. The design is clearly near a local optimum where even a small plate lengthening adds enough mass penalty to erase the sweep blend's benefit. Next: retest with plate length held at the champion's value and only the rear-sweep blend applied, to isolate which change cost the difference.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.246	137.9	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.922	166.6	37.9°
crosswind	3.777	160.5	33.1°
gusty_light	3.631	154.3	32.1°
hot_thin	3.462	147.1	27.3°
storm	4.725	200.7	29.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.2°
plate length	×1.06
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d28e201210a9

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.157 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.6% better
scenario mean	3.795 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.723 Wh/km
frame mass	83.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 35 via crossover

hypothesisAnother cross touching the champion lineage (4a0fbfe92906 at 6.154 x b5fd89cd1e22 at 6.144), betting that a richer material blend plus tiny sweep nudges could edge past the current best.

methodDoubled the material blend fraction, and nudged front and rear sweep by roughly 0.1-0.3 degrees.

resultValid at 6.157, same result as the parallel plate-length cross above, still short of best-so-far by the same margin. The heavier material fraction appears to be the cost driver since the sweep changes here were negligible. Next: hold material at the champion's lighter fraction and test sweep nudges in isolation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.257	138.4	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.916	166.3	38.0°
crosswind	3.774	160.3	33.0°
gusty_light	3.632	154.3	32.1°
hot_thin	3.471	147.5	27.3°
storm	4.723	200.6	29.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	42.3°
rear sweep	43.8°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.04
deck gap	40.4 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 10bac74fbaf3

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.174 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.3% better
scenario mean	3.806 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.737 Wh/km
frame mass	84.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 35 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two near-best designs (4a0fbfe92906 at 6.154 and 25de790024cd at 6.175) was a bet that blending their deck gap and material choices would find a synergy neither parent alone reached.

methodWidened the deck gap by 2mm, shifted the material blend toward the second parent's ratio, and widened the arms slightly.

resultValid at 6.174, essentially matching the weaker parent and barely improving on the stronger one, still short of best-so-far 6.144. The blend landed in the same fitness basin rather than producing a transgressive improvement. Next: cross designs with more divergent gene values instead of near-identical deck-gap/material settings.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.263	138.6	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.932	167.0	38.1°
crosswind	3.784	160.8	33.1°
gusty_light	3.641	154.7	32.1°
hot_thin	3.477	147.7	27.3°
storm	4.737	201.2	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	42.0°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.04
deck gap	42.4 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 252b5daf7b18

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.194 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.1% better
scenario mean	3.817 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.753 Wh/km
frame mass	85.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 35 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing 4f7255f5364a (6.198) with the stronger 4a0fbfe92906 (6.154) bet that inheriting the fitter parent's front sweep and arm waist would pull the offspring toward its performance.

methodShifted material ratio up slightly, eased front sweep back a touch, and nudged battery wedge and arm waist by fractions of a degree/percent.

resultValid at 6.194, sitting between the parents but missing both the fitter parent's 6.154 and best-so-far. The fine-grained material/waist dithering didn't move fitness much. Next: focus crossovers on genes where the top performers actually diverge more, like deck gap or arm length, rather than near-identical dimensions.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.266	138.7	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.950	167.8	38.3°
crosswind	3.799	161.4	33.3°
gusty_light	3.652	155.1	32.3°
hot_thin	3.482	147.9	27.4°
storm	4.753	201.9	29.7°

gene	value
arm length	×0.88
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	41.8°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	42.3 mm
battery wedge	0.7°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a8359c6458ff

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.195 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.0% better
scenario mean	3.818 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.754 Wh/km
frame mass	84.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 35 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two mid-pack designs (4f7255f5364a at 6.198 and 7b1e1208a985 at 6.163) tested whether a tiny rear-sweep nudge from the fitter parent would edge the offspring closer to that parent's performance.

methodIncreased rear sweep by about half a degree; plate width was effectively unchanged.

resultValid at 6.195, landing between the two parents but not beating either the fitter parent (6.163) or best-so-far. The minimal gene delta produced a correspondingly minimal fitness move, a sign the search is stalling near a plateau. Next: use a bigger perturbation, like arm width or sweep, rather than sub-degree tweaks, to escape the plateau.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.267	138.8	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.950	167.8	38.3°
crosswind	3.802	161.5	33.3°
gusty_light	3.653	155.2	32.3°
hot_thin	3.483	148.0	27.4°
storm	4.754	201.9	29.7°

gene	value
arm length	×0.89
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.6°
rear sweep	42.6°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	42.2 mm
battery wedge	0.8°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 828eaefbfeb7

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.218 Wh/km
vs baseline	9.7% better
scenario mean	3.833 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.769 Wh/km
frame mass	87.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 35 via pivot

hypothesisParent 4a0fbfe92906 sat just above the best-so-far at 6.154, so this pivot tried pushing front sweep noticeably further to see if more aggressive raking would shave drag losses.

methodIncreased front sweep by about 6 degrees, widened the arms, thinned the plate slightly, and pulled plate length back to baseline.

resultValid but regressed to 6.218, worse than the parent and well short of best-so-far. The extra sweep likely traded airflow benefit for structural mass and drag in more scenarios than it helped. Next: retry with front sweep held closer to 42-44 degrees and only the arm-width increase.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.293	139.9	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.958	168.2	38.2°
crosswind	3.807	161.7	33.1°
gusty_light	3.667	155.8	32.2°
hot_thin	3.507	149.0	27.4°
storm	4.769	202.6	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	47.7°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	40.4 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.76
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d899f2b793c7

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.219 Wh/km
vs baseline	9.7% better
scenario mean	3.833 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.772 Wh/km
frame mass	87.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 35 via crossover

hypothesisA self-cross of the stable 25de790024cd (6.175) with itself was effectively a perturbation test, betting that a thicker plate and wider arm waist would add durability margin without much cost.

methodIncreased plate thickness by about 10%, widened the arm waist slightly, and eased rear sweep back toward 42 degrees.

resultValid but worse at 6.219. This reinforces the pattern seen elsewhere this generation: added plate thickness consistently costs more in efficiency than it returns in robustness, with storm at 4.77 showing no special payoff. Next: stop testing plate-thickness increases and instead explore thinning it further near the current structural minimum.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.288	139.7	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.960	168.2	38.1°
crosswind	3.810	161.9	33.1°
gusty_light	3.667	155.8	32.2°
hot_thin	3.504	148.9	27.3°
storm	4.772	202.7	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.82
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	42.0°
rear sweep	42.4°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	42.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate f617d1a3cea6

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.263 Wh/km
vs baseline	9.1% better
scenario mean	3.862 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.801 Wh/km
frame mass	90.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 35 via pivot

hypothesisParent 6ef8e9a50f44 (6.177) was a solid mid-pack design; the bet here was that thickening the plate would buy stiffness and storm robustness worth the added mass.

methodIncreased plate thickness by about 29%, more than doubled the battery wedge tilt, and nudged front sweep up while easing rear sweep back slightly.

resultValid but worse: 6.263 vs the parent's 6.177, and well off the best-so-far of 6.144. Storm came in at 4.8, showing the thicker plate didn't buy meaningful robustness, just extra mass penalty across every scenario. Next: try the wedge/sweep tweaks alone, without the thickness increase, to isolate whether they help on their own.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.320	141.1	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.983	169.2	38.2°
crosswind	3.841	163.2	33.2°
gusty_light	3.695	157.0	32.2°
hot_thin	3.534	150.1	27.4°
storm	4.801	204.0	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.86
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	43.4°
rear sweep	41.3°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	40.1 mm
battery wedge	2.3°
plate thickness	×0.90
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 946429287b67

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.369 Wh/km
vs baseline	7.5% better
scenario mean	3.927 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.885 Wh/km
frame mass	99.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 35 via pivot

hypothesisParent 25de790024cd (6.175) was stable but plateaued; this pivot bet that beefing up arm thickness plus a wider deck gap would add durability margin worth the weight in gusty and storm conditions.

methodIncreased arm thickness by about 28%, shifted the material blend fully toward carbon-fiber plate, widened the deck gap by 2.5mm, and eased front sweep back slightly.

resultValid but the worst result of the batch at 6.369, well above best-so-far. Every scenario got worse, including storm at 4.89, showing the thicker arms cost efficiency uniformly rather than buying targeted robustness. Next: test the deck-gap widening alone without touching arm thickness.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.365	143.0	25.4°
cold_headwind	4.057	172.4	38.3°
crosswind	3.911	166.1	33.3°
gusty_light	3.756	159.6	32.3°
hot_thin	3.586	152.3	27.4°
storm	4.885	207.5	30.0°

gene	value
arm length	×0.82
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	5.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	40.7°
rear sweep	43.3°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	45.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 27544d45eb94

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	87.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 35 via pivot

hypothesisParent 6d24a438dc8f was a well-off-pace design (6.243), so this pivot swung hard: narrow the main plate and push the front sweep further to shave mass and improve airflow, betting aggressive slimming would recover the lost ground.

methodNarrowed plate width by 15%, increased front sweep by about 3 degrees, thickened arm width slightly, and added a small battery tilt.

resultInvalid: the plate web dropped to 1.45mm against a 1.90mm stock requirement, so it never got a flight score. Narrowing plate width while inheriting the parent's already-reduced plate thickness pushed the structural web below the manufacturable minimum. Worth testing: narrow plate width only if plate thickness ratio is raised in tandem to preserve web strength.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.2°
rear sweep	36.6°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.85
deck gap	35.1 mm
battery wedge	0.8°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 7e3cfb28251e

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	84.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 35 via pivot

hypothesisSame parent lineage (6ef8e9a50f44, 6.177) prompted a different bet: shift mass toward a longer main plate and shorter arms to change weight distribution.

methodLengthened the plate by 13%, shortened the arms by about 6%, and pulled front sweep and battery wedge back toward neutral.

resultInvalid: the shortened arms combined with the longer plate closed the rotor tip clearance, so it was killed before flight. Lesson: arm length and plate length can't move in opposite directions without violating rotor spacing. Next: try the plate lengthening alone, keeping arm length at the parent's value.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.81
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	40.2°
rear sweep	41.2°
plate length	×1.13
plate width	×1.04
deck gap	40.4 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b78c5f9a09d9

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	86.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 35 via pivot

hypothesisSame parent (25de790024cd, 6.175); this pivot bet that cutting rear sweep sharply would rebalance weight distribution and improve handling.

methodCut rear sweep by about 9 degrees, lengthened the plate by 9%, and widened the deck gap slightly.

resultInvalid: the shrunken rear sweep angle closed the rotor tip clearance. Lesson: rear sweep can't drop much below the low-40s given this frame's other proportions. Next: try a smaller rear-sweep cut, on the order of 3-5 degrees, to stay inside the clearance envelope.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.82
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	42.1°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.09
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	43.9 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate fb400498f2e6

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	85.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 35 via pivot

hypothesisSame parent again (25de790024cd, 6.175); bet was that tilting the battery and pulling in the deck gap and arm length together would tighten the CG and cut mass.

methodAdded a 2.5 degree battery wedge, shrank the deck gap by 2.7mm, shortened arms by about 6%, and shifted the material blend.

resultInvalid: the arm tongue bolts no longer lined up with the main plate once deck gap and arm length shrank together. Lesson: those two genes are coupled to the bolt pattern and can't both shrink freely. Next: shrink deck gap alone, holding arm length fixed, to see if that survives validation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.77
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	42.1°
rear sweep	43.6°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	39.8 mm
battery wedge	2.5°
plate thickness	×0.78
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate e0de6938fcf8

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	84.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 35 via mutation

hypothesisParent 80224a35b8a9 (6.156) was solid; this mutation tested whether widening the arm waist and splitting front/rear sweep further apart (front down, rear up) would improve asymmetric handling.

methodWidened the arm waist by about 15%, increased rear sweep by 2.4 degrees while decreasing front sweep by 1.7 degrees, and left plate width essentially unchanged.

resultInvalid: the arm tongue bolts no longer met the main plate, the same failure mode seen in fb400498f2e6. Lesson: arm waist width interacts with the bolt mounting pattern just as deck gap/arm length do. Next: retest the front/rear sweep asymmetry alone, without touching arm waist, to isolate whether the sweep split itself is viable.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.84
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.63
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.6°
rear sweep	44.4°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	42.9 mm
battery wedge	3.7°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 80224a35b8a9

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.156 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.6% better
scenario mean	3.795 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.722 Wh/km
frame mass	82.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 31 via pivot

hypothesisThe reigning best-so-far frame had zero battery wedge and a tight deck gap; this pivot bets that a small nose-up battery tilt plus a touch more deck clearance can trim drag further without destabilizing the airframe.

methodTilted the battery wedge to about 3.6°, opened the deck gap by roughly 3mm, narrowed the plate width slightly, and eased the front sweep back about 0.7°.

resultLanded at 6.156 Wh/km, essentially a dead heat with the 6.144 parent but not an improvement — not a new winner. The tiny wedge and gap tweaks netted out close to neutral across all six scenarios, with storm still the heaviest cost bucket. Worth testing a larger wedge angle in isolation (holding deck gap fixed) to see if tilt alone helps or hurts.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.252	138.2	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.918	166.5	38.0°
crosswind	3.778	160.5	33.2°
gusty_light	3.631	154.3	32.2°
hot_thin	3.466	147.3	27.3°
storm	4.722	200.6	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.84
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.3°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	42.9 mm
battery wedge	3.6°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 7b1e1208a985

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.163 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.5% better
scenario mean	3.798 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.730 Wh/km
frame mass	83.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 34 via pivot

hypothesisPlateau-breaking cross with a genetically distant parent under boosted mutation. Parents: 80224a (6.16) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: battery wedge 0.0° (was battery wedge 3.6°), arm length ×0.91 (was arm length ×0.84), deck gap 41.1 mm (was deck gap 42.9 mm), material 0.09 (was material 0.04).

resultAggregate 6.163 Wh/km. Best-so-far was 6.144 -- no improvement. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.249	138.0	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.927	166.8	38.2°
crosswind	3.782	160.7	33.2°
gusty_light	3.635	154.4	32.2°
hot_thin	3.465	147.2	27.4°
storm	4.730	200.9	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.91
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.4°
rear sweep	41.9°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	41.1 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 25de790024cd

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.175 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.3% better
scenario mean	3.807 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.737 Wh/km
frame mass	85.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 34 via pivot

hypothesisPlateau-breaking cross with a genetically distant parent under boosted mutation. Parents: 2d9fa0 (6.17) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: material 0.11 (was material 0.00), arm width ×0.84 (was arm width ×0.78), deck gap 42.5 mm (was deck gap 40.4 mm), arm length ×0.82 (was arm length ×0.83).

resultAggregate 6.175 Wh/km. Best-so-far was 6.144 -- no improvement. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.267	138.8	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.929	166.9	38.1°
crosswind	3.783	160.7	33.1°
gusty_light	3.642	154.7	32.1°
hot_thin	3.481	147.9	27.3°
storm	4.737	201.3	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.82
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	42.0°
rear sweep	43.2°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	42.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.73
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 6ef8e9a50f44

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.177 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.3% better
scenario mean	3.808 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.737 Wh/km
frame mass	83.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 34 via pivot

hypothesisPlateau-breaking cross with a genetically distant parent under boosted mutation. Parents: 6ee9d0 (6.16) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: front sweep 41.7° (was front sweep 36.1°), plate width ×1.05 (was plate width ×1.02), material 0.01 (was material 0.05), plate length ×1.01 (was plate length ×1.03).

resultAggregate 6.177 Wh/km. Best-so-far was 6.144 -- no improvement. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.268	138.8	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.932	167.1	38.1°
crosswind	3.789	161.0	33.2°
gusty_light	3.644	154.8	32.2°
hot_thin	3.481	147.9	27.3°
storm	4.737	201.2	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.86
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	41.7°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	40.1 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 4f7255f5364a

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.198 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.0% better
scenario mean	3.820 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.755 Wh/km
frame mass	85.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 34 via crossover

hypothesisRecombine two selected parents: their strengths may be complementary. Parents: 6ee9d0 (6.16) and 97ab5e (6.58) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: deck gap 42.2 mm (was deck gap 40.1 mm), arm length ×0.89 (was arm length ×0.84), arm waist ×0.57 (was arm waist ×0.55), front sweep 36.5° (was front sweep 36.1°).

resultAggregate 6.198 Wh/km. Best-so-far was 6.144 -- no improvement. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.270	138.9	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.951	167.8	38.3°
crosswind	3.803	161.5	33.3°
gusty_light	3.655	155.3	32.3°
hot_thin	3.486	148.1	27.4°
storm	4.755	202.0	29.7°

gene	value
arm length	×0.89
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.5°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	42.2 mm
battery wedge	0.8°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate ae82993fbbe5

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.201 Wh/km
vs baseline	9.9% better
scenario mean	3.822 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.758 Wh/km
frame mass	85.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 34 via pivot

hypothesisPlateau-breaking cross with a genetically distant parent under boosted mutation. Parents: 5e1beb (6.17) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: arm width ×0.87 (was arm width ×0.76), material 0.14 (was material 0.07), arm waist ×0.62 (was arm waist ×0.58), rear sweep 40.8° (was rear sweep 41.9°).

resultAggregate 6.201 Wh/km. Best-so-far was 6.144 -- no improvement. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.273	139.1	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.950	167.8	38.2°
crosswind	3.804	161.6	33.2°
gusty_light	3.657	155.3	32.2°
hot_thin	3.490	148.3	27.4°
storm	4.758	202.2	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.87
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.62
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.2°
rear sweep	40.8°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	41.0 mm
battery wedge	1.4°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 59d0332caef0

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.213 Wh/km
vs baseline	9.8% better
scenario mean	3.830 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.767 Wh/km
frame mass	87.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 34 via pivot

hypothesisPlateau-breaking cross with a genetically distant parent under boosted mutation. Parents: 6ee9d0 (6.16) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: battery wedge 3.0° (was battery wedge 0.8°), material 0.00 (was material 0.05), plate thickness ×0.74 (was plate thickness ×0.70), arm thickness 4.3 mm (was arm thickness 4.1 mm).

resultAggregate 6.213 Wh/km. Best-so-far was 6.144 -- no improvement. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.281	139.4	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.957	168.1	38.0°
crosswind	3.813	162.0	33.2°
gusty_light	3.665	155.7	32.1°
hot_thin	3.497	148.6	27.3°
storm	4.767	202.5	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.84
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.6°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	39.4 mm
battery wedge	3.0°
plate thickness	×0.74
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 6d24a438dc8f✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.243 Wh/km
vs baseline	9.3% better
scenario mean	3.847 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.791 Wh/km
frame mass	89.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 34 via designer

hypothesisHeadless-Claude design hypothesis (see designer_log.md).

methodGenome: arm length ×1.15, arm width ×0.75, arm waist ×0.55, arm thickness 4.0 mm.

resultAggregate 6.243 Wh/km. Best-so-far was 6.144 -- no improvement. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.282	139.4	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.982	169.2	38.6°
crosswind	3.844	163.3	33.6°
gusty_light	3.681	156.4	32.4°
hot_thin	3.503	148.8	27.5°
storm	4.791	203.6	30.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.4°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	35.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 32e907f6be9c✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.441 Wh/km
vs baseline	6.5% better
scenario mean	3.970 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.943 Wh/km
frame mass	103.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 34 via designer

hypothesisHeadless-Claude design hypothesis (see designer_log.md).

methodGenome: arm length ×1.05, arm width ×0.75, arm waist ×0.55, arm thickness 4.2 mm.

resultAggregate 6.441 Wh/km. Best-so-far was 6.144 -- no improvement. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.391	144.1	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.118	174.9	39.2°
crosswind	3.960	168.2	34.3°
gusty_light	3.793	161.1	32.7°
hot_thin	3.613	153.5	27.6°
storm	4.943	210.0	32.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.05
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	48.0°
plate length	×1.28
plate width	×1.20
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate c76d7cceb5c2✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.814 Wh/km
vs baseline	1.1% better
scenario mean	4.199 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.230 Wh/km
frame mass	129.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 34 via designer

hypothesisHeadless-Claude design hypothesis (see designer_log.md).

methodGenome: arm length ×1.00, arm width ×0.95, arm waist ×0.85, arm thickness 5.5 mm.

resultAggregate 6.814 Wh/km. Best-so-far was 6.144 -- no improvement. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.580	152.1	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.368	185.6	39.5°
crosswind	4.190	178.0	34.3°
gusty_light	4.008	170.3	33.0°
hot_thin	3.816	162.1	27.8°
storm	5.230	222.2	33.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×0.95
arm waist	×0.85
arm thickness	5.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	6.0°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 7efa9766f91d

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	82.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 34 via pivot

hypothesisPlateau-breaking cross with a genetically distant parent under boosted mutation. Parents: b5fd89 (6.14) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: front sweep 32.8° (was front sweep 36.0°), deck gap 40.9 mm (was deck gap 40.0 mm), plate length ×1.01 (was plate length ×1.02), arm width ×0.75 (was arm width ×0.75).

resultINVALID -- rotor disks overlap (tip clearance). The design never flew; the constraint itself is the learning.

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.8°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	40.9 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 97e678f2b788

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	83.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 34 via pivot

hypothesisPlateau-breaking cross with a genetically distant parent under boosted mutation. Parents: 17af4a (6.23) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: arm width ×0.95 (was arm width ×0.75), rear sweep 37.4° (was rear sweep 42.0°), arm length ×0.75 (was arm length ×0.83), front sweep 38.5° (was front sweep 36.0°).

resultINVALID -- rotor disks overlap (tip clearance). The design never flew; the constraint itself is the learning.

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.75
arm width	×0.95
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	38.5°
rear sweep	37.4°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	42.9 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 0b2c801ccdc3

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	83.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 34 via crossover

hypothesisRecombine two selected parents: their strengths may be complementary. Parents: 6ee9d0 (6.16) and 569ca6 (6.26) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: arm length ×0.79 (was arm length ×0.84), plate length ×1.06 (was plate length ×1.03), deck gap 39.0 mm (was deck gap 40.1 mm), arm waist ×0.58 (was arm waist ×0.55).

resultINVALID -- rotor disks overlap (tip clearance). The design never flew; the constraint itself is the learning.

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.06
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	39.0 mm
battery wedge	0.8°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 785f21da626a

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	137.9 g
material	pla_plus
born	generation 34 via immigrant

hypothesisFresh random genome to re-inject diversity.

methodGenome: arm length ×1.35, arm width ×1.04, arm waist ×0.63, arm thickness 5.8 mm.

resultINVALID -- arm tongue bolts miss the main plate. The design never flew; the constraint itself is the learning.

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×1.04
arm waist	×0.63
arm thickness	5.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	47.2°
rear sweep	55.0°
plate length	×1.11
plate width	×1.07
deck gap	41.3 mm
battery wedge	9.6°
plate thickness	×1.48
material	pla_plus

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 6ee9d05adace

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.158 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.6% better
scenario mean	3.796 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.724 Wh/km
frame mass	83.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 33 via crossover

hypothesisCross of two similarly mid-pack parents, 25489c5c4184 (6.183) and b2f3b2e99a18 (6.177); bets that blending their material ratio and arm genes could combine their respective strengths.

methodMaterial blend pulled down substantially, arm waist thinned slightly (×0.58→×0.55), deck gap nudged out (39.4mm→40.1mm), arm length shortened marginally (×0.86→×0.84).

result6.158 beats both parents (6.183 and 6.177) but still trails the 6.144 best-so-far — not a new winner. The leaner material blend combined with the slightly slimmer waist looks like the right direction. Worth testing next: push the material ratio even leaner while holding the rest fixed to see if gains continue or hit a strength floor.

notes by claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.252	138.2	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.916	166.4	37.9°
crosswind	3.781	160.6	33.1°
gusty_light	3.633	154.3	32.1°
hot_thin	3.468	147.3	27.3°
storm	4.724	200.7	29.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.84
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	40.1 mm
battery wedge	0.8°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 2d9fa0a61d91

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.165 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.5% better
scenario mean	3.800 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.730 Wh/km
frame mass	83.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 33 via crossover

hypothesisCross of 89b92a51a1d5 (6.162) and 63ee905eb117 (6.299); bets that nudging the two parents' sweep angles toward each other could land closer to the stronger parent.

methodFront and rear sweep nudged to nearly match (front 42.1°→42.0°, rear 42.1°→42.7°), with the rest of the geometry inherited essentially unchanged.

result6.165, effectively flat versus the stronger parent (6.162) and no improvement over the best-so-far. The tiny sweep symmetrization didn't move the needle either way, suggesting this frame is already near its sweep optimum around 42° and further gains need to come from mass, waist, or plate genes instead. Worth testing next: hold sweep fixed and vary deck gap or material blend on this lineage.

notes by claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.259	138.4	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.927	166.8	38.0°
crosswind	3.776	160.4	33.1°
gusty_light	3.635	154.4	32.1°
hot_thin	3.472	147.5	27.3°
storm	4.730	200.9	29.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	42.0°
rear sweep	42.7°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	40.4 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 5e1beb9c34c3

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.166 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.5% better
scenario mean	3.801 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.730 Wh/km
frame mass	83.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 33 via pivot

hypothesisParent b2f3b2e99a18 (6.177) sits close to the leading pack; this pivot bets that a tighter deck gap and slimmer arm waist can trim frontal area and mass enough to edge past the plateau.

methodDeck gap tightened (45.0mm→40.8mm), arm waist thinned (×0.62→×0.58), arm length lengthened slightly (×0.85→×0.87), material blend nudged up marginally.

resultImproved to 6.166, beating its parent (6.177), but still short of the 6.144 best-so-far — not a new winner. Storm remains the costliest scenario at 4.73. Worth testing next: pushing the deck-gap tightening further while holding everything else fixed to see if there's more headroom before hitting a clearance limit.

notes by claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.258	138.4	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.923	166.7	38.1°
crosswind	3.782	160.7	33.1°
gusty_light	3.637	154.5	32.1°
hot_thin	3.473	147.5	27.3°
storm	4.730	200.9	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.87
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.6°
rear sweep	41.9°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	40.8 mm
battery wedge	1.3°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate ad807299c4ea✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.183 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.2% better
scenario mean	3.812 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.742 Wh/km
frame mass	82.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 33 via designer

hypothesisA third designer probe bracketing the battery-wedge sweet spot, testing a middle-ground 7° wedge on the same short arm base between the 15° and 0° siblings.

methodSame short/narrow arm base as 17af4a9ef561 (×0.83 length, ×0.75 width) with deck gap at 42.0mm and battery wedge set to 7°.

result6.183, the best of the three designer probes and close to the population's mid-pack pivots, though still short of the 6.144 best-so-far. This confirms a moderate ~7° battery wedge beats both the steep 15° and level 0° extremes on this arm base. Worth testing next: fine-tune the wedge angle between 5-9° on this exact arm base to pinpoint the true optimum.

notes by claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.265	138.7	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.942	167.5	38.2°
crosswind	3.796	161.3	33.3°
gusty_light	3.647	154.9	32.3°
hot_thin	3.479	147.8	27.4°
storm	4.742	201.5	29.7°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	42.0 mm
battery wedge	7.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 17af4a9ef561✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.229 Wh/km
vs baseline	9.6% better
scenario mean	3.841 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.776 Wh/km
frame mass	82.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 33 via designer

hypothesisA designer-authored probe with no parents, testing whether a compact arm profile paired with a steep battery wedge could stake out a new baseline outside the existing gene pool.

methodFresh frame built on a short/narrow/thin-waist arm base (×0.83 length, ×0.75 width, ×0.55 waist, 4.0mm thickness) with 36°/42° front/rear sweep and a steep 15° battery wedge.

result6.229 — a reasonable but non-competitive result, well above the 6.144 best-so-far, likely dragged down by the steep 15° battery wedge shifting the center of gravity. Not a winner. Worth testing next: rerun the same arm base with the battery wedge flattened toward 0° to isolate the wedge's cost.

notes by claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.288	139.7	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.982	169.2	38.3°
crosswind	3.825	162.5	33.5°
gusty_light	3.672	156.0	32.4°
hot_thin	3.500	148.7	27.5°
storm	4.776	202.9	30.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	43.0 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 569ca6a7ac96✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.256 Wh/km
vs baseline	9.2% better
scenario mean	3.855 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.802 Wh/km
frame mass	89.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 33 via designer

hypothesisA sibling designer probe testing whether lengthening the arms from the same base profile, combined with a level battery wedge, trades favorably against the shorter 17af4a9ef561 variant.

methodSame narrow/thin arm cross-section as the sibling probe but arms lengthened (×0.83→×1.08), deck gap tightened to 40.0mm, and battery wedge leveled to 0°.

result6.256, slightly worse than its shorter sibling (6.229) despite the leveled wedge, and well off the 6.144 best-so-far. Lengthening the arms this much apparently adds more drag/mass than the flattened wedge saves. Worth testing next: apply the flattened wedge to the shorter (×0.83) arm base to isolate the wedge effect cleanly.

notes by claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.289	139.7	25.5°
cold_headwind	3.999	169.9	38.7°
crosswind	3.843	163.3	33.6°
gusty_light	3.687	156.6	32.5°
hot_thin	3.509	149.1	27.5°
storm	4.802	204.0	30.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.08
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 97ab5e513af7

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.575 Wh/km
vs baseline	4.5% better
scenario mean	4.052 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.046 Wh/km
frame mass	114.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 33 via pivot

hypothesisParent e03f89ef0ba9 sits well back of the pack at 6.48; this pivot bets that thickening the arm waist and adding sweep, plus more plate armor, could recover whatever's been holding this branch down.

methodArm waist thickened (×0.55→×0.71), front sweep increased (35.1°→38.2°), plate thickened (×0.72→×0.77), plate lengthened slightly (×0.96→×0.98).

resultValid but got worse, 6.575 vs the already-weak 6.48 parent, and far from the 6.144 best-so-far. Storm again dominates the per-scenario cost (5.05), consistent with storm being pack-limited across all frames. The extra mass from waist and plate thickening likely outweighed any structural gain. Worth testing next: leaning this branch out (thinner waist/plate) instead of armoring it further.

notes by claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.464	147.2	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.205	178.6	38.5°
crosswind	4.035	171.4	33.5°
gusty_light	3.872	164.5	32.5°
hot_thin	3.692	156.8	27.5°
storm	5.046	214.4	30.8°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.71
arm thickness	6.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	38.2°
rear sweep	43.3°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.04
deck gap	39.7 mm
battery wedge	2.6°
plate thickness	×0.77
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 73cdfee975b7

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.732 Wh/km
vs baseline	2.2% better
scenario mean	4.148 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.169 Wh/km
frame mass	107.9 g
material	asa
born	generation 33 via crossover

hypothesisCross of a weak parent e355e5e9089c (6.685) and the strong 80224a35b8a9 (6.156); bets that switching to ASA plastic plus a wider arm could rescue the weak parent's structure.

methodArm width widened (×0.85→×0.93), deck gap loosened (43.0mm→44.2mm), arm thickness trimmed slightly (7.5mm→7.3mm), plate thickened marginally, and material switched from carbon-fiber plate to ASA plastic.

result6.732, worse than both parents and far from the 6.144 best-so-far. The ASA material swap likely added a density/weight penalty the geometry tweaks couldn't offset — carbon-fiber plate continues to dominate ASA in this population. Worth testing next: avoid the ASA gene on future crosses unless paired with an aggressive mass-cutting geometry change.

notes by claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.504	148.9	26.0°
cold_headwind	4.393	186.6	40.4°
crosswind	4.145	176.1	35.2°
gusty_light	3.948	167.7	33.8°
hot_thin	3.730	158.4	28.3°
storm	5.169	219.6	37.8°

gene	value
arm length	×0.91
arm width	×0.93
arm waist	×0.83
arm thickness	7.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	44.2 mm
battery wedge	14.9°
plate thickness	×1.02
material	asa

parents

candidate 6f086649a134

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	101.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 33 via pivot

hypothesisThe parent (80224a35b8a9, 6.156) was already near the front of the pack; this pivot bets that beefing up the arm cross-section while pulling the rear sweep in tighter could add stiffness margin without much weight penalty.

methodRear sweep pulled from 42° to 34°, arm cross-section widened (~×0.77→×0.90) and thickened (4.0mm→5.0mm), with arms lengthened slightly (×0.84→×0.89).

resultInvalid: the arm root tongues collide on the main plate. Stacking a wider, thicker arm onto a tighter sweep angle crowded the root tongues into each other where they meet the plate. Worth testing next: the sweep change alone, without the width/thickness increase, to see if it's the sweep or the bulk that's the real culprit.

notes by claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.89
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	5.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.3°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	43.7 mm
battery wedge	3.7°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 486e7c057cea

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	83.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 33 via pivot

hypothesisParent 89b92a51a1d5 (6.162) suggested trimming plate mass might help; this pivot bets that shrinking the plate footprint while slightly reinforcing the arms could cut weight without losing stiffness.

methodPlate length shrunk substantially (×1.02→×0.88), arm thickness raised slightly (4.0mm→4.3mm), arm width narrowed (×0.78→×0.75), front sweep nudged in (42.1°→41.2°).

resultInvalid: the plate web comes out too thin (1.39mm vs a 1.75mm stock minimum). The plate-length cut thinned the load-bearing web independent of the (unchanged) thickness gene. Worth testing next: the same length cut but with plate thickness raised in tandem to keep the web above the print-strength floor.

notes by claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	41.2°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×0.88
plate width	×1.04
deck gap	41.2 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 22436f68f052

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	88.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 33 via pivot

hypothesisSame parent 89b92a51a1d5 (6.162); this pivot bets that a much more aggressive forward sweep, backed by extra plate and waist reinforcement, could unlock an aerodynamic gain in headwind/gust scenarios.

methodFront sweep swung out hard (42.1°→52.0°) while rear sweep pulled in (42.1°→39.5°), plate thickened (×0.71→×0.83), arm waist thickened (×0.55→×0.63).

resultInvalid: the rotor disks overlap. The large front-sweep swing closed up tip clearance between rotors at this arm length. Worth testing next: a milder front-sweep increase (~45-46°) in isolation, without touching rear sweep, to find the clearance ceiling.

notes by claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.63
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	52.0°
rear sweep	39.5°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×1.07
deck gap	40.3 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.83
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate bb38d8a3bb00

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	114.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 33 via pivot

hypothesisParent 479db986ecaa lags badly at 6.562; this pivot bets that de-sweeping the rear arms and leveling the battery wedge could cut enough drag to close the gap.

methodRear sweep pulled sharply in (43.4°→34.0°), battery wedge leveled (2.6°→0.0°), material blend raised, arm length lengthened slightly (×0.95→×0.98).

resultInvalid: rotor disks overlap. The same 34° rear-sweep move that broke 6f086649a134 struck again here, this time as a rotor tip-clearance failure rather than a root-tongue collision — a recurring failure point for tight rear sweep this generation. Worth testing next: 34° rear sweep paired with a compensating arm-length increase to preserve tip clearance.

notes by claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.98
arm width	×0.94
arm waist	×1.09
arm thickness	4.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.9°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.04
deck gap	40.8 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 6a069e77c36c

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	117.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 33 via pivot

hypothesisParent 8c09d409b60d was itself invalid (no fitness); this pivot is a repair attempt, betting that lengthening the arms and tightening the deck gap would clear whatever fault broke the parent.

methodArms lengthened substantially (×0.84→×1.09), deck gap tightened (44.0mm→37.8mm), arm waist thinned (×0.71→×0.55), plate thinned (×0.81→×0.70).

resultInvalid: arm tongue bolts miss the main plate. The large arm-length increase combined with the tighter deck gap shifted the tongue bolt holes off the plate's bolt pattern. A repair attempt that changed too many genes at once rather than isolating the parent's actual fault. Worth testing next: adjust deck gap alone on this lineage before touching arm length.

notes by claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.09
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	5.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.2°
rear sweep	45.8°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	37.8 mm
battery wedge	12.7°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d1a9bb636e7e

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	94.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 33 via crossover

hypothesisCross between the current best 80224a35b8a9 (6.156) and the weaker 63ee905eb117 (6.299); bets that borrowing thicker plate/arm stock from the weaker parent could add durability margin to the stronger layout.

methodPlate thickened (×0.71→×0.82), arm thickness raised (4.0mm→4.6mm), arm widened (×0.77→×0.84), plate narrowed (×0.99→×0.95).

resultInvalid: plate web too thin (1.10mm vs 1.90mm stock). Counterintuitively, thickening the plate-thickness gene while narrowing plate width still left the load-bearing web below minimum — narrowing width evidently costs more web margin than the thickness increase can buy back. Worth testing next: keep plate width near ×0.99-1.00 whenever thickness is pushed up, to avoid this cross-term trap.

notes by claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.84
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.2°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×0.95
deck gap	42.5 mm
battery wedge	2.9°
plate thickness	×0.82
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 89b92a51a1d5

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.162 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.5% better
scenario mean	3.799 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.728 Wh/km
frame mass	83.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 32 via pivot

hypothesisBet that making front sweep mirror rear sweep (~42° both) plus a purer cf_plate composition would improve storm/crosswind handling by symmetrizing the arm geometry.

methodRaised front sweep from 36.0° to 42.1° to nearly match rear sweep, shifted material to full cf_plate, and nudged arm width and plate width up slightly.

resultValid at 6.162 — close to but not better than the champion's 6.144, running slightly worse across every scenario, especially storm (4.73). Full front/rear symmetry didn't pay off, suggesting the champion's asymmetric sweep is load-bearing rather than incidental. Next: try a smaller front-sweep bump (+2-3° only) to see if partial symmetry captures upside without the storm penalty.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.259	138.5	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.924	166.7	38.0°
crosswind	3.775	160.4	33.1°
gusty_light	3.634	154.4	32.1°
hot_thin	3.472	147.5	27.3°
storm	4.728	200.8	29.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	42.1°
rear sweep	42.1°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	40.3 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b2f3b2e99a18

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.177 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.3% better
scenario mean	3.806 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.740 Wh/km
frame mass	83.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 32 via pivot

hypothesisParent 774ab485c721 trails the champion slightly; bet was that shrinking plate length and softening front sweep could trim mass while a wider deck gap preserved rotor clearance.

methodShrunk plate length (×1.01→×0.95), eased front sweep (35.7°→33.7°), widened arm waist slightly (×0.55→×0.62), and widened deck gap (43.4→45.0mm).

resultValid at 6.177, essentially flat versus the parent's 6.17 and still behind the champion's 6.144. Four simultaneous small tweaks produced a roughly neutral net result, muddying which lever mattered. Next: isolate a single bolder change (e.g., plate length ×0.90 alone) to get a cleaner read.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.256	138.3	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.942	167.5	38.3°
crosswind	3.786	160.9	33.2°
gusty_light	3.641	154.7	32.3°
hot_thin	3.472	147.5	27.4°
storm	4.740	201.4	29.8°

gene	value
arm length	×0.85
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.62
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.7°
rear sweep	41.9°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	45.0 mm
battery wedge	1.1°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 25489c5c4184

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.183 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.2% better
scenario mean	3.811 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.744 Wh/km
frame mass	84.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 32 via crossover

hypothesisThe reverse-order cross of the champion (6.144) and the same weak parent (6.622) bet that the champion's genes would dominate and produce something close to champion fitness.

methodBlended material toward more cf_plate (0.16), added a small 0.8° battery wedge, and nudged arm length and arm waist up slightly.

resultValid at 6.183, close to but still behind the champion's 6.144 — confirming the champion sits in a strong local optimum that even favorable-parent-weighted crossovers with this pairing don't beat. Next: try a zero-battery-wedge cross of this same pair, since wedge additions haven't helped anywhere in the champion's lineage this generation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.260	138.5	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.938	167.3	38.1°
crosswind	3.798	161.4	33.2°
gusty_light	3.647	154.9	32.2°
hot_thin	3.477	147.7	27.3°
storm	4.744	201.6	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.86
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	39.4 mm
battery wedge	0.8°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 63ee905eb117

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.299 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.5% better
scenario mean	3.881 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.835 Wh/km
frame mass	94.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 32 via pivot

hypothesisBet that beefing up arm thickness would buy structural margin under gusty/storm loads, offsetting the added mass with better stiffness.

methodRaised arm thickness from 4.0mm to 4.9mm, extended arm length (×0.83→×0.89), tightened deck gap (40→38mm), and grew plate length slightly.

resultValid but fitness 6.299, worse than the champion across every scenario including storm (4.83). The mass penalty from thicker arms outweighed any stiffness gain. Next: leave arm thickness near 4.0mm — this design region already looks mass/stiffness optimal — and look elsewhere for storm-scenario gains.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.314	140.8	25.4°
cold_headwind	4.016	170.6	38.2°
crosswind	3.871	164.5	33.3°
gusty_light	3.714	157.8	32.2°
hot_thin	3.537	150.3	27.4°
storm	4.835	205.4	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.89
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.9 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	41.8°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 396bda910391✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.359 Wh/km
vs baseline	7.7% better
scenario mean	3.919 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.880 Wh/km
frame mass	101.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 32 via designer

hypothesisA hand-specified diversity injection testing whether known-good arm proportions paired with much heavier plating could compete, giving the search population a fresh starting point outside the current lineage.

methodFresh design close to the champion's arm genes (length ×0.88, width ×0.75, waist ×0.55, thickness 4.0mm) but with plate thickness pushed way up to ×1.20 and deck gap widened to 45mm, no battery wedge.

resultValid at 6.359, clearly worse than the champion — the over-thick plates added mass without a performance payoff. Next: retry this same arm geometry with plate thickness left near stock (×0.70-0.75) to isolate whether the arm proportions alone are competitive.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.354	142.5	25.4°
cold_headwind	4.048	172.0	38.1°
crosswind	3.903	165.8	33.2°
gusty_light	3.750	159.3	32.2°
hot_thin	3.578	152.0	27.3°
storm	4.880	207.3	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.88
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	45.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.20
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate e03f89ef0ba9

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.480 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.9% better
scenario mean	3.995 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.972 Wh/km
frame mass	108.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 32 via crossover

hypothesisCrossover of a weak parent (6.496) and a near-champion parent (6.156) hoped to inherit the stronger parent's tuned sweep/plate geometry and land closer to it than to the weak parent.

methodBlended traits into plate length ×0.96, front sweep 35.1°, plate width ×1.03, and arm width ×0.76 — but the offspring kept the weak parent's thicker 6.1mm arm.

resultValid at 6.48, landing near the weak parent's 6.496 rather than the strong parent's 6.156 — the blend leaned too heavily on the weak parent's mass-heavy arm thickness. Next: weight crossover selection toward the fitter parent's arm-thickness gene specifically rather than an even blend.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.416	145.1	25.4°
cold_headwind	4.131	175.5	38.2°
crosswind	3.985	169.3	33.3°
gusty_light	3.822	162.4	32.3°
hot_thin	3.643	154.7	27.4°
storm	4.972	211.2	30.0°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	6.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.1°
rear sweep	41.9°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	39.9 mm
battery wedge	2.1°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 0db573fd2915

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.534 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.1% better
scenario mean	4.027 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.015 Wh/km
frame mass	103.0 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 32 via pivot

hypothesisParent 8180dd9759e5 already trails the champion badly; this pivot bet that a much larger front-sweep increase plus a pet_cf material switch and thicker plates might unlock a different, more storm-tolerant structure.

methodRaised front sweep from 36.0° to 44.7°, extended arm length (×0.85→×1.07), widened deck gap (40→44.2mm), thickened arm width and switched material to pet_cf with much thicker plates (×0.90).

resultValid but fitness 6.534, worse than even its already-weak parent. The heavier arm/plate/pet_cf combo piled on mass faster than it bought performance. Next: the pet_cf branch isn't paying off here — deprioritize it and keep pivots closer to the cf_plate champion lineage.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.426	145.6	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.221	179.3	39.9°
crosswind	4.013	170.5	34.5°
gusty_light	3.839	163.1	33.3°
hot_thin	3.648	155.0	27.9°
storm	5.015	213.0	35.3°

gene	value
arm length	×1.07
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.63
arm thickness	5.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	44.7°
rear sweep	40.9°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	44.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.90
material	pet_cf

parents

candidate 479db986ecaa

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.562 Wh/km
vs baseline	4.7% better
scenario mean	4.041 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.042 Wh/km
frame mass	110.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 32 via crossover

hypothesisCrossover paired a weak parent (6.604) with a stronger one (6.17), betting the fitter parent's plate/deck-gap tuning would pull the offspring toward its performance level.

methodBlended plate length (×0.95), arm width (×0.92), arm waist (×1.07), and deck gap (41.5mm) from both parents.

resultValid at 6.562, worse than the fitter parent (6.17) and closer to the weaker one (6.604) — the crossover diluted rather than amplified the good parent's advantage. Next: this 93380ffb97df pairing keeps underperforming across attempts; consider retiring it from the breeding pool.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.435	145.9	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.221	179.3	39.5°
crosswind	4.023	170.9	34.1°
gusty_light	3.857	163.9	33.0°
hot_thin	3.667	155.8	27.8°
storm	5.042	214.2	33.9°

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×1.07
arm thickness	4.7 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.8°
rear sweep	43.4°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	41.5 mm
battery wedge	2.6°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate e355e5e9089c✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.685 Wh/km
vs baseline	2.9% better
scenario mean	4.120 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.130 Wh/km
frame mass	106.9 g
material	asa
born	generation 32 via designer

hypothesisA second diversity injection exploring a heavier, more rigid design in ASA with a steep battery wedge, testing whether a stiffer, more tilted configuration could better handle storm conditions.

methodFresh design with arm thickness nearly doubled to 7.5mm, arm waist widened to ×0.85, battery wedge set to 15°, and material switched entirely to ASA.

resultValid at 6.685, the worst result of generation 32 — the heavy arms, steep wedge, and ASA material stacked penalties across every scenario, especially storm (5.13). Next: this combination looks like a dead end; if more diversity injections are tried, isolate the steep wedge with lighter arm thickness to see which factor costs the most.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.486	148.1	25.9°
cold_headwind	4.345	184.6	40.2°
crosswind	4.123	175.1	35.1°
gusty_light	3.925	166.8	33.6°
hot_thin	3.712	157.7	28.2°
storm	5.130	217.9	36.8°

gene	value
arm length	×0.90
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.85
arm thickness	7.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	43.0 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	asa

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 2897b1d60ad2

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	66.0 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 32 via pivot

hypothesisParent 774ab485c721 already trails the champion by a couple tenths; this pivot bet that switching to a lighter PA12-CF blend while easing both sweep angles could shave mass without losing stiffness.

methodWidened arm width slightly, trimmed rear sweep from 41.9° to 36.4° and front sweep from 35.7° to 32.9°, and shifted the material composition toward pa12_cf.

resultInvalid: the plates came out too thin for pa12_cf (1.4mm vs the 1.6mm minimum) — plate thickness wasn't scaled up to match the weaker material's strength requirements. Lesson: any pivot into pa12_cf needs a compensating plate-thickness bump built in, not left at the parent's cf_plate-tuned value. Worth retrying this exact sweep change but with plate thickness raised to ~×0.85+.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.86
arm width	×0.88
arm waist	×0.61
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.9°
rear sweep	36.4°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	42.2 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate ee00db1192ac

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	82.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 32 via pivot

hypothesisStarting from the reigning champion, this pivot bet that trimming rear sweep and adding a touch of battery wedge could fine-tune weight distribution without disturbing the winning baseline.

methodReduced rear sweep from 42.0° to 38.8°, added a 0.9° battery wedge, and made small material and plate-length adjustments.

resultInvalid: rotor disks now overlap on tip clearance. Cutting rear sweep on the champion's already-tight geometry pushed the rear rotors too close together. Next: pair any further rear-sweep reduction with a compensating deck-gap or arm-length increase to preserve clearance.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.84
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	38.8°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	39.9 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b428d18d0ae0

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	88.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 32 via pivot

hypothesisAlso starting from the champion, this pivot bet that thickening the arm waist for stiffness while narrowing the plate to save mass would be a favorable trade.

methodWidened arm waist from ×0.55 to ×0.81, narrowed plate width from ×1.02 to ×0.95, and bumped plate thickness slightly (×0.70→×0.75) to compensate.

resultInvalid: the web between arm root and plate edge came out too thin (1.10mm vs 1.90mm stock) despite the thicker plates. Narrowing the plate while fattening the arm waist ate through the safety margin faster than the thickness bump could restore it. Next: keep arm waist conservative whenever plate width is being narrowed.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.86
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.81
arm thickness	4.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.6°
rear sweep	43.0°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×0.95
deck gap	40.3 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 9bc484a7f9a2

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	88.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 32 via crossover

hypothesisTwo closely-matched near-champion parents (6.156 and 6.16) were crossed on the bet that combining their rear-sweep and thickness traits might find a joint improvement over both.

methodPushed rear sweep to 45.9° (beyond either parent's 42.0°), raised arm thickness to 4.5mm, and slightly reduced battery wedge and deck gap.

resultInvalid: the arm tongue bolts miss the main plate — combining an extreme rear-sweep push with a tightened deck gap shifted the arm mount off the plate's bolt pattern. Next: cap rear-sweep/deck-gap combinations in crossovers to a range that keeps bolt-hole alignment intact.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.84
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.2°
rear sweep	45.9°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	41.8 mm
battery wedge	2.8°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 8c09d409b60d

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	114.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 32 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing a weak parent (6.622) with the champion (6.144) hoped the champion's strong core would rescue the weak parent's steep battery-wedge/rear-sweep combination.

methodInherited a high 13.4° battery wedge and 45.6° rear sweep from the weak parent, with plate thickness at ×0.81 and arm width at ×0.90.

resultInvalid: arm tongue bolts miss the main plate again — likely the extreme battery wedge combined with the altered rear sweep shifted the mount off the bolt pattern. This is the second bolt-miss failure this generation from a similar wedge+sweep combination. Next: cap battery-wedge inheritance in crossovers whenever paired with sweep changes.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.84
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.71
arm thickness	5.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	45.6°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	44.0 mm
battery wedge	13.4°
plate thickness	×0.81
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate bd7c0cc776e5

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.160 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.5% better
scenario mean	3.796 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.728 Wh/km
frame mass	83.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 28 via mutation

hypothesisAs a direct mutation of the reigning best-so-far frame (6.144), this candidate makes a narrow bet: does easing the deck gap open and stretching the arm slightly, while keeping everything else close to the champion, find an incremental improvement or just noise?

methodWidened the deck gap from 40.0mm to 42.3mm, lengthened the arm slightly to 0.87x, pulled plate length back to 1.00x, and nudged plate thickness up fractionally to 0.71x.

resultLanded at 6.16 Wh/km -- a near-miss just 0.016 behind the 6.144 best-so-far, not a new winner but the closest challenger this generation. The small deck-gap and arm-length nudges moved cost in the wrong direction only slightly, suggesting the champion's geometry sits very near a local optimum in this direction. Worth testing an even smaller deck-gap increase (e.g. +1mm) in isolation to map the sensitivity curve around the champion.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.247	138.0	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.925	166.7	38.0°
crosswind	3.781	160.6	33.1°
gusty_light	3.633	154.4	32.1°
hot_thin	3.464	147.2	27.3°
storm	4.728	200.9	29.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.87
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	41.7°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	42.3 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 774ab485c721

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.170 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.4% better
scenario mean	3.803 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.735 Wh/km
frame mass	83.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 31 via pivot

hypothesisSame bd7c0cc776e5 parent; this pivot makes a much gentler bet — nudge the deck gap and material stiffness slightly and add a hair of battery wedge, keeping arms untouched, to probe for small marginal gains.

methodOpened the deck gap about 1mm, shifted the material stiffness parameter slightly, added a small 0.5° battery wedge, and trimmed front sweep by 0.3°.

resultCame in at 6.17 Wh/km, essentially flat with its 6.16 parent and still behind the 6.144 best-so-far — no new winner. The small, cautious nudges didn't move the needle in either direction, suggesting this design region is near a local plateau. Next worth trying: a coordinated push on arm waist or thickness instead of these micro-tweaks, since fine-grained fiddling here is diminishing-returns territory.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.250	138.1	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.936	167.2	38.1°
crosswind	3.789	161.0	33.2°
gusty_light	3.639	154.6	32.2°
hot_thin	3.467	147.3	27.4°
storm	4.735	201.2	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.86
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.7°
rear sweep	41.9°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	43.4 mm
battery wedge	0.5°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 2a33f72303bb

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.202 Wh/km
vs baseline	9.9% better
scenario mean	3.822 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.758 Wh/km
frame mass	85.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 31 via pivot

hypothesisParent 743f85076dc5 sat a bit behind the leaders; this pivot bets that adding battery wedge and fattening the arm waist while widening the plate could recover some of that gap.

methodAdded 1.5° of battery wedge, thickened the arm waist taper, steepened the front sweep by about 1°, and widened the plate a touch along with a small deck gap increase.

resultFinished at 6.202 Wh/km, worse than both its 6.176 parent and the 6.144 best-so-far. The combined wedge+waist+sweep changes each nudged cost up slightly and compounded rather than cancelled. Suggests battery wedge is not a free lunch on this chassis family — worth isolating wedge angle alone against a known-good parent before stacking it with sweep changes.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.275	139.1	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.953	167.9	38.2°
crosswind	3.803	161.6	33.3°
gusty_light	3.656	155.3	32.2°
hot_thin	3.490	148.3	27.4°
storm	4.758	202.1	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.86
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.62
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.3°
rear sweep	40.5°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	42.9 mm
battery wedge	1.5°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 8180dd9759e5✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.302 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.5% better
scenario mean	3.884 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.836 Wh/km
frame mass	90.5 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 31 via designer

hypothesisThis designer pitch tests a genuinely different lever untouched by the evolutionary line so far: swapping the plate material from carbon-fiber plate to a PET-CF composite, paired with compact arms, to see if material choice alone can beat the geometry-only optimizations.

methodUsed compact 0.85x arms with 0.78x width and a moderate 0.60x waist, arm thickness 5.5mm, zero battery wedge, standard 40mm deck gap, and switched the plate material to pet_cf.

resultScored 6.302 Wh/km — the best of the three designer proposals this generation and closer to competitive than the others, but still short of the 6.144 best-so-far. The compact, zero-wedge geometry paired well with the material swap, losing least ground of the fresh designs across all scenarios. This is the most promising designer lead this round — worth crossing this pet_cf material choice directly onto the champion's proven arm/sweep geometry next.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.310	140.6	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.033	171.3	38.7°
crosswind	3.877	164.7	33.6°
gusty_light	3.714	157.8	32.5°
hot_thin	3.531	150.0	27.5°
storm	4.836	205.5	31.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.85
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	5.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate dbe355952720

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.496 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.7% better
scenario mean	4.004 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.984 Wh/km
frame mass	109.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 31 via pivot

hypothesisSame champion parent; this pivot bets that much thicker arms plus battery wedge and a lighter material setting could improve structural efficiency enough to offset the added mass.

methodThickened arms from 4.0mm to 6.2mm, added 2° of battery wedge, lightened the material stiffness parameter, and nudged front sweep up half a degree.

resultFell to 6.496 Wh/km, clearly worse than the 6.144 best-so-far and a big step back from the parent. The added arm mass from the thickness jump wasn't recovered by the lighter material choice, and it lost ground in every single scenario including storm. Teaches that on this frame, arm thickness above ~5mm is a net efficiency loss — future thickness bets should stay closer to the 4-5mm band already proven.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.423	145.4	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.143	176.0	38.2°
crosswind	3.994	169.7	33.3°
gusty_light	3.829	162.7	32.3°
hot_thin	3.650	155.1	27.4°
storm	4.984	211.7	30.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	6.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.5°
rear sweep	41.9°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	40.1 mm
battery wedge	2.0°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 15ac485d0093✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.531 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.2% better
scenario mean	4.025 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.012 Wh/km
frame mass	104.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 31 via designer

hypothesisWith the evolutionary population clustering tightly around 6.14-6.2, this fresh designer proposal deliberately explores a different region — long, slender arms with a steep 15° battery wedge and a wide deck gap — to test whether an entirely different structural philosophy could unlock a new basin.

methodSet arm length to 1.28x with a narrow 0.75x width and tight waist taper, arm thickness at 4.5mm, front/rear sweep at 32°/37°, a roomy 45mm deck gap, and a steep 15° battery wedge.

resultScored 6.531 Wh/km — valid but well behind the 6.144 best-so-far, no new winner. The long slender arms plus aggressive battery tilt cost more than they saved across every scenario, especially storm. It does confirm the design space is navigable outside the evolved cluster, though; next worth testing this same long-arm, narrow-waist skeleton with the battery wedge dialed back near zero to isolate whether the wedge or the arm proportions is the bigger drag.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.424	145.5	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.211	178.9	39.6°
crosswind	4.019	170.8	34.5°
gusty_light	3.840	163.1	33.1°
hot_thin	3.646	154.9	27.9°
storm	5.012	212.9	34.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.28
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	45.0 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 93380ffb97df

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.604 Wh/km
vs baseline	4.1% better
scenario mean	4.067 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.074 Wh/km
frame mass	113.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 31 via pivot

hypothesisParent 996c430df865 had been an invalid design; this pivot bets that fattening the arm waist and lengthening the arms would fix whatever geometric conflict made the parent fail, while widening the plate for margin.

methodThickened the arm waist taper substantially, lengthened the arms from 0.75x to 0.95x, widened the plate by 3%, and added roughly half a millimeter of arm thickness.

resultCame out valid this time at 6.604 Wh/km, but far behind the 6.144 best-so-far — repairing the invalid parent didn't produce a competitive frame, it just produced a legal but heavy one. The longer, fatter arms cost efficiency across every scenario uniformly. Next idea: instead of scaling everything up to escape invalidity, try shrinking arm length back down while keeping only the waist fix that likely resolved the original conflict.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.458	146.9	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.251	180.6	39.8°
crosswind	4.048	172.0	34.3°
gusty_light	3.881	164.9	33.1°
hot_thin	3.690	156.8	27.8°
storm	5.074	215.6	34.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.97
arm waist	×1.04
arm thickness	4.7 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.8°
rear sweep	43.3°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	42.2 mm
battery wedge	2.3°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate cbb51c89c940✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.622 Wh/km
vs baseline	3.8% better
scenario mean	4.082 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.080 Wh/km
frame mass	112.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 31 via designer

hypothesisA third designer variant probes whether a wider, more heavily-waisted arm combined with the steep 15° battery wedge and roomy deck gap (similar bet to 15ac485d0093) is a viable alternative structural family.

methodUsed compact 0.85x arms but with wider 0.85x width and a heavier 0.75x waist taper, arm thickness 5.5mm, standard sweep angles, a roomy 45mm deck gap, and a steep 15° battery wedge with a slightly thicker plate.

resultScored 6.622 Wh/km — valid but the weakest of the three fresh designer proposals and well off the 6.144 best-so-far. The wider, heavier-waisted arms combined with the steep battery wedge again proved costly across every scenario, echoing 15ac485d0093's result. Two designer attempts with a 15° wedge both underperformed the wedge-free ones (8180dd9759e5, and the champion itself), which is a fairly clear signal — next designer round should drop the steep battery wedge entirely and focus variation on material and waist taper instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.487	148.1	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.250	180.6	39.0°
crosswind	4.067	172.8	34.0°
gusty_light	3.897	165.6	32.8°
hot_thin	3.712	157.7	27.7°
storm	5.080	215.8	32.9°

gene	value
arm length	×0.85
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.75
arm thickness	5.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	45.0 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate a1bb27682a91

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.732 Wh/km
vs baseline	2.2% better
scenario mean	4.147 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.171 Wh/km
frame mass	116.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 31 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing a mediocre valid frame (61158ead8b8c, 6.829) with an invalid one (43fb4a1dc200) bets that borrowing the invalid parent's thinner plate and arm proportions could both fix the invalidity and shave some weight off the valid parent.

methodThinned the plate to 0.81x, trimmed arm thickness to 4.7mm, narrowed arm width slightly, and eased front sweep back half a degree.

resultCame out valid at 6.732 Wh/km — an improvement over its 6.829 parent but still far off the 6.144 best-so-far, no new winner. The weight-trimming moves (thinner plate, thinner arms) helped incrementally but weren't enough to close the gap to the leading lineage. Worth next pairing this lighter plate/arm combination with the champion's shorter arm length and near-zero battery wedge instead of the extreme 15° wedge it still carries.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.512	149.2	25.9°
cold_headwind	4.371	185.7	40.3°
crosswind	4.135	175.7	34.9°
gusty_light	3.950	167.8	33.6°
hot_thin	3.742	159.0	28.1°
storm	5.171	219.7	36.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.31
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.61
arm thickness	4.7 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.5°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.06
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	44.4 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.81
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 5a6783da5c02

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	7.356 Wh/km
vs baseline	6.8% worse
scenario mean	4.525 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.661 Wh/km
frame mass	167.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 31 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing a weak parent (9f871c62ad20, 7.393) with the champion (b5fd89cd1e22, 6.144) hoped the champion's traits would dominate and pull the offspring toward the better performance band.

methodThinned the plate slightly, stretched the already-long arms further to 1.32x, trimmed arm thickness a touch, and nudged arm width up marginally.

resultScored 7.356 Wh/km — barely better than the weak parent and nowhere near the 6.144 best-so-far, no new winner. The blend inherited the weak parent's oversized arm length (1.32x) almost unchanged, which apparently dominates the fitness penalty regardless of what else improves. Teaches that arm length extremes need to be corrected directly in crossovers, not left to average out — next worth forcing arm length back toward the champion's shorter value in any future cross with this weak parent.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.812	161.9	25.9°
cold_headwind	4.791	203.5	41.1°
crosswind	4.510	191.6	35.4°
gusty_light	4.303	182.8	34.0°
hot_thin	4.072	173.0	28.3°
storm	5.661	240.5	39.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.32
arm width	×1.01
arm waist	×0.96
arm thickness	6.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	37.8 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.78
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate e72f6ad32c59

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	130.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 31 via pivot

hypothesisParent bd7c0cc776e5 was thin-armed and slender-waisted; this pivot bets that beefing up arm thickness and waist taper would buy stiffness/efficiency margin, accepting a length trade via a longer plate.

methodThickened the arms from 4.0mm to 6.7mm, fattened the arm waist taper substantially, stretched the plate 7% longer, and pulled the rear sweep in a few degrees.

resultInvalid — rotor disks now overlap on tip clearance. The much thicker, less-tapered arm combined with a longer plate pushed the rotor arcs into each other. Lesson: arm thickness and waist gains need to be paired with a length or sweep adjustment that preserves rotor spacing, not a plate stretch that eats into it.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.85
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.92
arm thickness	6.7 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.0°
rear sweep	38.5°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	42.4 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 9d847a0f53c3

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	88.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 31 via pivot

hypothesisSame b5fd89cd1e22 champion parent; this pivot bets that pulling the front sweep back sharply while adding battery wedge and waist taper could open a new efficient regime.

methodAdded nearly 3° of battery wedge, swept the front arms back by 3.5°, thickened the arm waist taper, and stretched the plate about 5% longer.

resultInvalid — rotor disks overlap on tip clearance. The sharp front-sweep pullback combined with the longer plate closed up the spacing the champion relied on. Reinforces the pattern from e72f6ad32c59: plate-length increases on this lineage are dangerous unless sweep and waist are held conservative. Next: try the front-sweep pullback alone, without the plate stretch, to see if it's viable in isolation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.81
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.64
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.5°
rear sweep	42.1°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	40.2 mm
battery wedge	2.9°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 9378120bd933

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	85.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 31 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing a solid performer (bd7c0cc776e5, 6.16) with a weak one (d27e3b644e69, 6.833) bets that blending might inherit the strong parent's efficiency while picking up useful sweep/length variation from the weak one.

methodLengthened the arms slightly, swept the rear back nearly 3°, tightened the deck gap by about 2mm, and added a small 0.5° battery wedge.

resultInvalid — the arm tongue bolts now miss the main plate entirely. The blended rear-sweep and deck-gap combination shifted the arm root attachment point off the plate's bolt pattern. This is a structural-alignment failure rather than an aerodynamic one, and it shows crossover recombination can break mounting geometry even when both parents' bolt patterns were individually fine — worth adding a bolt-alignment sanity check before scoring flights on crossover offspring.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.94
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.9°
rear sweep	44.4°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	40.4 mm
battery wedge	0.5°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 399f8cf8b4df

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	95.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 31 via crossover

hypothesisParent 552b09dbb0d4 was itself invalid; crossing it with the champion (b5fd89cd1e22, 6.144) bets that the champion's proven geometry could stabilize whatever made the first parent fail.

methodLengthened the arms marginally, tightened the deck gap by 0.2mm, and trimmed rear sweep by 0.2° — very small changes overall.

resultStill invalid — arm root tongues now collide on the main plate. The crossover barely moved any genes yet inherited a structural conflict, suggesting the invalid parent's core problem (likely its already-long 1.33x-1.35x arms combined with a tight ~32mm deck gap) wasn't touched by this recombination. Next idea: when crossing with a known-invalid parent, prioritize repairing its most extreme dimension (here, arm length or deck gap) rather than leaving it nearly unchanged.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	30.6°
rear sweep	36.1°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.1 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 743f85076dc5

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.176 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.3% better
scenario mean	3.806 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.740 Wh/km
frame mass	84.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 30 via pivot

hypothesisFrom bd7c0cc776e5 (6.16), the bet was that a slightly larger plate footprint would add structural margin and let the rear sweep relax a touch, hopefully without much drag penalty.

methodGrew plate width from ×1.02 to ×1.06 and plate length from ×1.00 to ×1.02, eased rear sweep from 41.7° to 40.5°, and thickened the arm waist slightly from ×0.55 to ×0.57.

resultValid at 6.176 — slightly worse than its 6.16 parent and short of the 6.144 best-so-far, not a new winner. Storm (4.74) was the heaviest single drag on the average; the larger plate likely added mass without a matching aero or structural payoff. Worth testing: keep the arm-waist thickening but revert the plate footprint growth.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.257	138.4	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.933	167.1	38.0°
crosswind	3.792	161.1	33.2°
gusty_light	3.643	154.8	32.1°
hot_thin	3.474	147.6	27.3°
storm	4.740	201.3	29.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.86
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	40.5°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	42.4 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 61158ead8b8c✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.829 Wh/km
vs baseline	0.8% better
scenario mean	4.207 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.244 Wh/km
frame mass	125.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 30 via designer

hypothesisA second hand-designed candidate testing whether a large 15° battery-wedge tilt, shifting weight/CG, could offset a large frame and improve efficiency.

methodHand-set long arms (×1.30) with a lighter waist (×0.60) than the sibling design, 5.0 mm thickness, a wide plate (×1.06 length/width), a roomy 44 mm deck gap, and a pronounced 15° battery wedge tilt.

resultValid at 6.829 — better than the other designer candidate (7.393) but still over 11% off the 6.144 best-so-far, not a new winner. The battery-wedge tilt didn't rescue the design; the oversized plate and long arms still carried too much mass. Worth testing: try the 15° battery wedge in isolation on a lighter, evolved-population-derived frame to see if the CG shift has value on its own.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.566	151.5	25.8°
cold_headwind	4.422	187.9	40.1°
crosswind	4.201	178.5	34.9°
gusty_light	4.008	170.3	33.5°
hot_thin	3.800	161.4	28.1°
storm	5.244	222.8	36.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	5.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.06
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	44.0 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.90
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate d27e3b644e69

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.833 Wh/km
vs baseline	0.8% better
scenario mean	4.210 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.247 Wh/km
frame mass	132.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 30 via pivot

hypothesisFrom the same underperforming 6.321 parent, this pivot bets that beefing up arm waist and thickness for stiffness, plus a wider plate, would fix whatever was capping the lineage.

methodThickened arm waist from ×0.55 to ×0.82 and arm thickness from 4.0 mm to 5.5 mm, widened the plate from ×0.99 to ×1.06, and tightened rear sweep from 36.3° to 34.0°.

resultValid but markedly worse at 6.833 vs the parent's 6.321 and far off the 6.144 best-so-far — a regression across every scenario, worst in storm (5.25). Stacking arm-waist and thickness gains simultaneously added more mass than any stiffness benefit could offset. Worth testing: keep arms light and instead attack this lineage's long arm length (×1.33+), which is the more likely root cause.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.576	151.9	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.405	187.1	40.1°
crosswind	4.205	178.6	34.8°
gusty_light	4.013	170.5	33.4°
hot_thin	3.813	162.0	28.0°
storm	5.247	222.9	35.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.82
arm thickness	5.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.9°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	33.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 9f871c62ad20✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	7.393 Wh/km
vs baseline	7.4% worse
scenario mean	4.548 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.691 Wh/km
frame mass	171.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 30 via designer

hypothesisA hand-designed candidate (no parent) testing a heavily over-built philosophy — long, thick, wide arms and a robust plate — betting maximum structural margin would pay off even at a mass cost.

methodHand-set long arms (×1.28) with a thick waist (×0.95) and heavy 6.5 mm thickness, an enlarged plate (×1.05 length/width) at ×0.85 thickness, neutral 0° battery wedge, and a moderate 38 mm deck gap.

resultValid but the worst score of the generation at 7.393, over 20% off the 6.144 best-so-far, penalized in every scenario (storm hit hardest at 5.69). This confirms mass dominates this fitness landscape far more than structural margin does — the evolved population's lighter, constraint-hugging designs win precisely by shaving grams this build doesn't. Worth testing: seed future designer candidates from the evolved population's mass budget and only add margin where a specific constraint is actually failing.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.832	162.8	25.9°
cold_headwind	4.810	204.4	40.9°
crosswind	4.535	192.7	35.3°
gusty_light	4.326	183.8	33.9°
hot_thin	4.095	173.9	28.2°
storm	5.691	241.8	39.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.28
arm width	×1.00
arm waist	×0.95
arm thickness	6.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 996c430df865

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.19 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	83.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 30 via pivot

hypothesisParent bd7c0cc776e5 (6.16) was solid but not close to winning; this pivot bets that widening the arms while shortening them and trimming the plate footprint would cut mass/drag without sacrificing stiffness.

methodWidened arm width from ×0.75 to ×0.97, shortened arm length from ×0.87 to ×0.75, trimmed plate width from ×1.02 to ×0.96, and swept the rear back from 41.7° to 44.4°.

resultInvalid: the plate web thinned to 1.19 mm against a 1.90 mm stock minimum. Narrowing plate width without compensating plate thickness pushed the web under the print-safety floor. Worth testing: repeat the arm changes alone, leaving plate width untouched, or pair any plate-width cut with a thickness bump.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.75
arm width	×0.97
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.8°
rear sweep	44.4°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.96
deck gap	42.3 mm
battery wedge	0.7°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate e615dc8d3a25

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	86.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 30 via pivot

hypothesisParent b5fd89cd1e22 (6.144) sits at essentially the current best; this pivot probes a small refinement — pulling the front arms in while opening the deck gap — hoping to shave frontal drag.

methodNarrowed front sweep from 36.0° to 34.0°, opened the deck gap from 40.0 mm to 42.1 mm, thickened arms slightly from 4.0 mm to 4.3 mm, and nudged rear sweep from 42.0° to 42.6°.

resultInvalid: rotor disks now overlap, violating tip clearance. Pulling the front sweep in on an already-tight parent closed the prop-to-prop margin. Worth testing: open front sweep instead of narrowing it, or lengthen the arms slightly to buy back clearance before touching sweep.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.0°
rear sweep	42.6°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	42.1 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate e162599ce26b

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.19 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	78.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 30 via pivot

hypothesisParent e16b157da4af never scored (null fitness), so this pivot was exploratory: shrink the plate length while thickening the plate stock, betting the extra thickness would offset the smaller, lighter footprint.

methodShrank plate length from ×1.02 to ×0.86, boosted plate thickness from ×0.70 to ×0.78, swept the rear out from 39.9° to 44.4°, and pulled front sweep in slightly from 33.3° to 34.7°.

resultInvalid again on the plate web: 1.19 mm against the 1.90 mm stock minimum, the same failure as another gen-30 candidate. Even a thicker plate multiplier couldn't save a plate shrunk this far. Worth testing: keep plate length above roughly 0.95x whenever probing shorter footprints.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.7°
rear sweep	44.4°
plate length	×0.86
plate width	×0.96
deck gap	39.4 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.78
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 74e38c3db9ed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	88.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 30 via pivot

hypothesisParent 5d716b74aeec (6.321) was underperforming, likely from carrying overly long arms; this pivot bets on cutting arm length substantially and widening the arms for stiffness to recover efficiency.

methodCut arm length from ×1.33 to ×1.08, widened arm width from ×0.75 to ×0.82, swept rear sweep out from 36.3° to 38.7°, and trimmed plate width from ×0.99 to ×0.97.

resultInvalid: plate web thinned to 1.44 mm, still under the 1.90 mm floor, though closer than the more severe 1.19 mm failures elsewhere this generation. Shortening the arms shifted load onto the plate and exposed the web constraint even without touching plate thickness directly. Worth testing: pair arm shortening with a plate-thickness increase rather than leaving it at the parent's baseline.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.08
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.3°
rear sweep	38.7°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.97
deck gap	32.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 43fb4a1dc200

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	97.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 30 via pivot

hypothesisFrom bd7c0cc776e5 (6.16), the bet was a more compact frame — tighter deck gap and pulled-in front sweep — to cut frontal area and drag, backed by thicker arms for structural headroom.

methodClosed deck gap from 42.3 mm to 35.2 mm, pulled front sweep in from 36.0° to 30.8°, thickened arms from 4.0 mm to 5.1 mm, and lengthened arms slightly from ×0.87 to ×0.90.

resultInvalid: rotor disks overlap, tip clearance violated. Compacting both deck gap and front sweep at once left no room for the prop discs to clear each other. Worth testing: vary only one of deck gap or front sweep per trial to map where the clearance boundary actually sits.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.90
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	5.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	30.8°
rear sweep	41.5°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	35.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.73
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 1af27a90ed91

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	135.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 30 via immigrant

hypothesisAn immigrant injection with no parent, meant to explore a very different corner of the design space — steep rear sweep, enlarged plate, heavy battery tilt — betting a radically different topology might unlock gains the pivot/mutation lineages haven't reached.

methodFresh random genome: thick wide arms (5.9 mm, ×0.97 width), pronounced 55.8° rear sweep, enlarged plate (×1.25 length, ×1.09 width), tight 31.1 mm deck gap, and a steep 14.8° battery wedge tilt.

resultInvalid, and not a marginal miss: arm tongue bolts miss the main plate entirely, a gross assembly mismatch rather than a fine constraint violation. The extreme rear sweep combined with the enlarged/shifted plate moved the arm attachment points off the bolt pattern. Worth testing: constrain future immigrant sampling to sweep angles and plate dimensions the assembly logic has already validated.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.88
arm width	×0.97
arm waist	×0.96
arm thickness	5.9 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.4°
rear sweep	55.8°
plate length	×1.25
plate width	×1.09
deck gap	31.1 mm
battery wedge	14.8°
plate thickness	×0.76
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 552b09dbb0d4

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	94.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 30 via mutation

hypothesisA small mutation off the underperforming 6.321 parent, testing whether a slightly longer plate and marginally tighter front sweep could nudge efficiency without much structural risk.

methodGrew plate length from ×1.00 to ×1.04 and eased front sweep from 31.7° to 30.6°, leaving everything else at the parent's values.

resultInvalid: arm root tongues collide on the main plate. Even this small a change was enough to push the parent's already-long arms (×1.33) into interference at the root. Worth testing: mutate arm length down slightly instead of growing plate length, to buy clearance rather than close it further.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.33
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	30.6°
rear sweep	36.3°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	32.3 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 0a24b568835b

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	83.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 30 via crossover

hypothesisA crossover between an unscored lineage (e16b157da4af) and the solid 6.16 performer f3c1391bd96c, betting that blending toward a relaxed rear sweep and thicker arm waist would combine the good parent's efficiency with extra structural robustness.

methodRelaxed rear sweep from 39.9° to 36.3°, thickened arm waist from ×0.55 to ×0.62, trimmed plate length from ×1.02 to ×0.99, and nudged battery wedge from 0.9° to 1.4°.

resultInvalid: plate web too thin again, 1.20 mm against the 1.90 mm stock minimum — the same recurring failure mode seen in several other gen-30 candidates. The population keeps probing a plate-thinning direction that this constraint reliably blocks. Worth testing: bias crossover to inherit the thicker-plate parent's plate-thickness gene rather than defaulting toward the thinner blend.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.82
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.62
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.3°
rear sweep	36.3°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×0.96
deck gap	39.4 mm
battery wedge	1.4°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 2ea47d5f310e

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	94.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 30 via crossover

hypothesisA crossover pairing the near-best performer b5fd89cd1e22 (6.144) with the weaker 5d716b74aeec (6.321), betting the blend would inherit the top performer's efficiency while diversifying the geometry.

methodKept the long-arm parent's layout largely intact, with small nudges: front sweep 31.7°→30.7°, arm length ×1.33→×1.35, rear sweep 36.3°→35.8°, plate length ×1.00→×1.01.

resultInvalid: arm root tongues collide, the same failure mode as another candidate from this same long-arm (×1.33+) lineage. The crossover barely moved off already-marginal geometry and tipped it into collision. Worth testing: any future offspring drawing from this parent should shorten arm length as the primary move, not a side effect of other tweaks.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	30.7°
rear sweep	35.8°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.2 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 815bffc7f216✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (petg)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	133.9 g
material	petg
born	generation 30 via designer

hypothesisA third hand-designed candidate testing a material swap to PETG instead of carbon-fiber plate, betting the thickest arms of the generation could compensate for PETG's lower stiffness.

methodSwitched material from cf_plate to petg, used the thickest arms in the batch (7.5 mm) with a moderate waist (×0.75) and length (×1.15), keeping sweep angles and deck gap near the population defaults.

resultInvalid: arm tip deflection failure — PETG's lower stiffness let the arm tips flex past the limit even at 7.5 mm thickness, the thickest tested this generation. This effectively rules out PETG for this arm-length range under current constraints. Worth testing: either abandon PETG for this frame or, if revisited, pair it with a much shorter arm length rather than pushing thickness further.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.75
arm thickness	7.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.90
material	petg

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate f3c1391bd96c

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.160 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.5% better
scenario mean	3.797 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.727 Wh/km
frame mass	83.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 29 via pivot

hypothesisAlso spun off the 6.16 performer bd7c0cc776e5, this candidate bet on a battery-wedge tilt plus a slightly leaner material mix to find margin the parent's flat, thicker-material config might be leaving on the table.

methodAdded a small battery wedge tilt, tightened the deck gap by half a millimeter, shifted the material fraction slightly leaner, and thinned the plates marginally.

resultLanded at exactly 6.16, matching its parent almost gene-for-gene in outcome — no gain, no loss, and still behind the 6.144 best-so-far. The wedge tilt appears fitness-neutral at this magnitude. Next: try a larger battery wedge angle to see if a bigger CG shift is needed before it registers a measurable effect.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.250	138.1	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.924	166.7	38.0°
crosswind	3.779	160.6	33.1°
gusty_light	3.634	154.4	32.1°
hot_thin	3.466	147.2	27.3°
storm	4.727	200.8	29.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.87
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	41.6°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	41.8 mm
battery wedge	0.6°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate eaac38d8fb90

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.168 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.4% better
scenario mean	3.801 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.734 Wh/km
frame mass	84.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 29 via pivot

hypothesisParent bd7c0cc776e5 was near the front of the pack at 6.16, so this pivot made a conservative bet: trim plate length and soften the front sweep slightly to shave a little more drag while barely touching structure.

methodShortened the plate by about 3%, eased front sweep by roughly a degree, and nudged arm thickness and waist up fractionally.

resultCame in at 6.168, essentially flat with (very slightly worse than) its 6.16 parent, and short of the 6.144 best-so-far — not a new winner. Storm remained the costliest scenario at 4.73 Wh/km, suggesting the small plate/sweep trim didn't move the needle on the worst-case weather. Next: try trimming plate length alone, without the sweep and arm-waist changes, to isolate which gene is actually helping or hurting.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.251	138.1	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.927	166.8	38.0°
crosswind	3.787	160.9	33.1°
gusty_light	3.639	154.6	32.1°
hot_thin	3.469	147.4	27.3°
storm	4.734	201.1	29.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.87
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.9°
rear sweep	41.8°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	42.3 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 5d716b74aeec

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.321 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.2% better
scenario mean	3.894 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.853 Wh/km
frame mass	93.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 29 via crossover

hypothesisA self-cross of c2b0d2201631 (6.321) with itself, essentially probing whether nudging just the material fraction on an already-evaluated design could find a small improvement.

methodLeft every gene the same as the parent except a modest increase in the material fraction, still within the cf_plate blend.

resultFitness came back at 6.321, identical to the parent — the material-fraction nudge alone made no measurable difference, and the design remains well behind the 6.144 best-so-far, with storm at 4.85 Wh/km. Next: this lineage's arm length (well above 1.3x) and tight sweep angles seem to be the limiting factors, not material fraction — try shortening arm length toward the leaders' range instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.315	140.8	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.052	172.2	39.2°
crosswind	3.886	165.1	34.0°
gusty_light	3.721	158.1	32.8°
hot_thin	3.537	150.3	27.7°
storm	4.853	206.2	32.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.33
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.7°
rear sweep	36.3°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	32.3 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 093c1d4d8456✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.376 Wh/km
vs baseline	7.4% better
scenario mean	3.928 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.896 Wh/km
frame mass	93.2 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 29 via designer

hypothesisA designer probe testing a short, stocky arm paired with pa12_cf material, on the theory that a tougher material could allow a more compact, thick-walled arm to trade material efficiency for structural margin.

methodHand-set a short arm (0.85x) with a thick 6.5mm cross-section, kept sweep at baseline, and used pa12_cf material with correspondingly thicker plates (0.90x).

resultValid at 6.376, ahead of the other two designer probes this generation but still well off the 6.144 best-so-far, with storm at 4.9 Wh/km. The short, thick-walled pa12_cf concept is viable but not yet competitive with the cf_plate lineage's leaner tuning. Next: keep the pa12_cf material and thick arm but try shrinking plate width/length toward the evolved leaders' proportions to shed the extra mass.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.332	141.6	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.102	174.3	39.1°
crosswind	3.926	166.8	34.0°
gusty_light	3.753	159.5	32.8°
hot_thin	3.557	151.1	27.7°
storm	4.896	208.0	32.7°

gene	value
arm length	×0.85
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.65
arm thickness	6.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.90
material	pa12_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 3edd371fb561✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.391 Wh/km
vs baseline	7.2% better
scenario mean	3.937 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.908 Wh/km
frame mass	100.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 29 via designer

hypothesisA designer probe testing a short-arm, heavily swept, large-plate concept — betting that big front/rear sweep angles on oversized plates could buy aerodynamic gains even with a compact arm.

methodHand-set a short arm (0.85x) with steep front and rear sweep (42°/48°), and grew the plates well past baseline (1.22x length, 1.20x width) in cf_plate.

resultValid at 6.391, in the same range as the other two designer probes but still trailing the 6.144 best-so-far, with storm at 4.91 Wh/km. The oversized swept plates didn't translate into the hoped-for aerodynamic win, likely because the added plate mass offset any drag benefit. Next: keep the sweep angles but shrink the plates back toward baseline size to see if the sweep concept works better without the added bulk.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.358	142.6	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.086	173.6	38.7°
crosswind	3.924	166.7	33.9°
gusty_light	3.765	159.9	32.5°
hot_thin	3.583	152.2	27.5°
storm	4.908	208.5	30.8°

gene	value
arm length	×0.85
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	42.0°
rear sweep	48.0°
plate length	×1.22
plate width	×1.20
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate ec9339002012✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.460 Wh/km
vs baseline	6.2% better
scenario mean	3.981 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.957 Wh/km
frame mass	96.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 29 via designer

hypothesisA hand-authored designer probe testing whether a long-arm, steeply-wedged battery layout — shifting the CG well forward — could unlock efficiency the evolutionary lineages hadn't tried, since no recent pivot had explored a wedge past a couple of degrees.

methodHand-set a long arm (1.3x) with a slim width and waist, kept sweep and plate dimensions near baseline, but dialed the battery wedge up to 15° — far steeper than anything else in this generation.

resultValid but middling at 6.46, well short of the 6.144 best-so-far and behind most of the evolved pivots this generation, with storm at 4.96 Wh/km. The steep wedge doesn't appear to pay for itself at this arm length. Next: retest a long arm at a much smaller wedge angle (2-3°) to isolate whether the wedge or the arm length is dragging fitness down.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.385	143.8	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.170	177.1	39.8°
crosswind	3.972	168.7	34.6°
gusty_light	3.798	161.4	33.2°
hot_thin	3.605	153.1	27.9°
storm	4.957	210.6	35.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	43.0 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 6819f10e81f0

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.504 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.5% better
scenario mean	4.007 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.995 Wh/km
frame mass	108.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 29 via pivot

hypothesisParent 789004694cf7 never produced a valid flight, so this pivot's design bet was pure repair: adjust plate and arm proportions until the geometry clears validity, then see what fitness that region of the space actually offers.

methodWidened the plate, narrowed arm width, shortened arm length slightly, and increased front sweep by about a degree.

resultThe repair worked — it flew this time, but landed at 6.504, well behind the 6.144 best-so-far and mid-pack for the generation, with storm at 5.0 Wh/km. Validity alone didn't buy competitiveness. Next: keep the fix that restored validity but graft in the top lineage's tighter arm-waist and sweep values to see if this region can be pulled closer to the leaders.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.405	144.7	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.171	177.2	40.0°
crosswind	4.008	170.3	34.8°
gusty_light	3.827	162.6	33.1°
hot_thin	3.635	154.4	27.8°
storm	4.995	212.2	34.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.28
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.84
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.2°
rear sweep	34.8°
plate length	×1.27
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	32.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 3110d83a7fdb

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.917 Wh/km
vs baseline	0.4% worse
scenario mean	4.261 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.312 Wh/km
frame mass	134.1 g
material	petg
born	generation 29 via pivot

hypothesisParent ff31eeb40243 was a weak petg-heavy design at 6.746, well off the pace, and this pivot bet that dialing back the petg fraction and rear sweep could recover some of that lost efficiency.

methodPulled the material mix back from mostly petg, reduced rear sweep by about 3°, narrowed the plate width slightly, and added a small battery wedge tilt.

resultGot worse, not better — 6.917 vs the parent's 6.746, drifting further from the 6.144 best-so-far, with storm ballooning to 5.31 Wh/km, the worst of this batch. The petg lineage keeps underperforming regardless of tuning. Next: abandon further petg pivots and instead cross a petg-heritage individual with a cf_plate top performer to see if the material gene alone can be swapped in cleanly.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.609	153.3	25.8°
cold_headwind	4.473	190.0	40.1°
crosswind	4.263	181.1	34.9°
gusty_light	4.061	172.5	33.4°
hot_thin	3.848	163.5	28.0°
storm	5.312	225.7	36.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.06
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.90
arm thickness	7.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.9°
rear sweep	38.9°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	34.6 mm
battery wedge	0.8°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	petg

parents

candidate f17e0da204ad

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	63.0 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 29 via pivot

hypothesisParent b5fd89cd1e22 already sat at the best-so-far fitness, so this pivot bet that swapping toward a tougher printed material could let the plates run thinner without giving up stiffness, trimming mass in a still-competitive design.

methodShifted the material blend heavily toward glass/carbon-reinforced nylon (pa12_cf), widened the plate slightly, tightened the deck gap by a bit over a millimeter, and eased the rear sweep by about a degree.

resultInvalid before it ever flew: pa12_cf carries a thicker minimum-gauge requirement than the plate thickness gene allowed, so the plates came out too thin (1.4mm vs a 1.6mm floor) and the design was rejected outright. This shows material swaps toward pa12_cf can't just carry over the cf_plate-tuned thickness gene as-is. Next: pair any pa12_cf material shift with a compensating plate-thickness increase so the minimum-gauge constraint clears.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	41.1°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	38.8 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 23fe18955143

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	96.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 29 via pivot

hypothesisParent da2e2a61777f trailed the leaders at 6.239, and the design bet here was that a much more aggressively swept, thicker-plated frame could cut drag losses enough to close the gap.

methodPushed both front and rear sweep angles up substantially, thickened the plates by about 25%, and opened the deck gap by nearly 3mm.

resultInvalid — the combined sweep and gap change moved the arm mounting tongues far enough that their bolts no longer land on the main plate. The aggressive dual-sweep bet never got flight-tested. Next: vary sweep angles incrementally and re-check bolt alignment before compounding front and rear sweep changes together.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.87
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.82
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	42.9°
rear sweep	48.6°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	42.7 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.90
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate e16b157da4af

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.19 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	82.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 29 via pivot

hypothesisSpun off the best-so-far parent b5fd89cd1e22, betting that narrowing the plate and easing both sweep angles could cut mass and drag further while riding on an already-winning base.

methodNarrowed plate width by about 6%, eased front and rear sweep by roughly 2-3°, and added a small battery wedge tilt.

resultInvalid — the narrower plate combined with the reduced sweep left the structural web too thin (1.19mm against a 1.9mm minimum), so it never flew. This is the second time this generation a plate-width cut plus sweep change has broken a constraint. Next: if narrowing the plate again, hold plate thickness constant or increase it to protect the web margin instead of also easing sweep in the same move.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.3°
rear sweep	39.9°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×0.96
deck gap	39.5 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 83dcce1f5619

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	83.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 29 via crossover

hypothesisCrossed two closely-matched near-leaders, bd7c0cc776e5 (6.16) and a4a39e5410fe (6.165), betting that blending their genes would land somewhere at least as good as either parent.

methodTook a slightly narrower plate, a wider rear sweep, a touch more arm length, and a leaner material fraction — a blend of traits from both parents.

resultInvalid — the recombined sweep and plate-width genes again pushed the arm tongue bolts off the main plate, the same failure mode seen in candidate 23fe18955143 this generation. Crossing two valid, high-performing parents doesn't guarantee a valid offspring when sweep and plate width interact. Next: add a bolt-alignment check into the crossover operator itself so sweep/plate-width combinations get rejected or repaired before a full evaluation is spent on them.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.89
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	43.2°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	42.8 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 2a21d0410682

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (petg)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	126.0 g
material	petg
born	generation 29 via immigrant

hypothesisA fresh immigrant with no lineage, meant to inject diversity by resampling broadly across nearly every gene rather than nudging an existing champion.

methodRolled a stockier, wider arm, larger plates, a steep 11.5° battery wedge, and petg material — a broad, independent draw across the whole gene set.

resultInvalid — the arm tip deflected too far under load, a petg failure mode that's now shown up twice this generation (also candidate 3110d83a7fdb). Random immigrants keep landing on petg's compliance problem when arm geometry isn't specifically tuned to compensate. Next: bias immigrant sampling to widen or shorten arms whenever petg is drawn, so the deflection constraint has a fighting chance of clearing.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.16
arm width	×1.15
arm waist	×0.84
arm thickness	5.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	38.2°
rear sweep	41.4°
plate length	×0.93
plate width	×1.22
deck gap	35.3 mm
battery wedge	11.5°
plate thickness	×1.35
material	petg

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 92e1fc2e2002

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	96.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 29 via crossover

hypothesisCrossed the long-arm c2b0d2201631 lineage (6.321) with the tighter-tuned bd7c0cc776e5 (6.16), betting the offspring could inherit the reach of one and the efficiency of the other.

methodPushed arm length even longer than either parent, tightened the deck gap by over 2mm, reduced rear sweep, and widened the arm waist slightly.

resultInvalid — at that stretched arm length combined with the tighter deck gap, the arm root tongues now collide on the main plate. The crossover pushed arm length past a packing ceiling that neither parent alone had reached. Next: cap arm length increases when deck gap is also being tightened, since the two genes jointly consume the same clearance budget.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.2°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a4a39e5410fenew best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.165 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.5% better
scenario mean	3.800 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.731 Wh/km
frame mass	83.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 23 via crossover

hypothesisThe champion (245f65ba6586, 6.172) was already lean on carbon material fraction; the bet was that borrowing a slightly richer fraction from its invalid sibling, plus a touch-shorter arm, could stiffen the frame enough to trim the storm penalty without much added mass.

methodRaised the material (carbon) fraction, shortened the arm slightly, added a small battery wedge, and eased rear sweep back by under a degree.

resultScored 6.165 — a NEW WINNER, beating the prior best-so-far of 6.172267024132615. Every scenario improved marginally, with storm easing to 4.73, indicating the extra material fraction paid for its added weight in stiffness. Next: push the material fraction a bit further (toward 0.15-0.18) on this same frame to see if the gain continues or plateaus.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.254	138.2	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.928	166.9	38.2°
crosswind	3.783	160.7	33.2°
gusty_light	3.636	154.5	32.2°
hot_thin	3.469	147.4	27.4°
storm	4.731	201.0	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.88
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.7°
rear sweep	41.2°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	37.3 mm
battery wedge	0.6°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate da2e2a61777f

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.239 Wh/km
vs baseline	9.4% better
scenario mean	3.845 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.788 Wh/km
frame mass	88.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 28 via pivot

hypothesisWith the best-so-far frame (6.144) hard to beat outright, this pivot tests whether adding a small battery-wedge tilt and a much thicker arm waist -- borrowed from a much weaker parent -- can trade a little plate efficiency for better load distribution in storm-class gusts.

methodThickened the arm waist from 0.55x to 0.81x, tilted the battery bay 1.8° nose-up, narrowed arm width slightly to 0.79x, and nudged the material blend fully toward carbon-fiber plate.

resultCame in at 6.239 Wh/km, worse than the 6.144 best-so-far and worse than its top parent -- not a new winner. Storm remained the costliest scenario at 4.79, suggesting the added waist mass didn't buy enough stiffness to offset the extra weight it carries through every flight. Next idea: keep the battery wedge tweak (it's a cheap directional change) but revert the waist back toward 0.55x to see if the tilt alone helps.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.291	139.8	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.975	168.9	38.4°
crosswind	3.829	162.7	33.3°
gusty_light	3.680	156.3	32.3°
hot_thin	3.509	149.1	27.4°
storm	4.788	203.4	29.7°

gene	value
arm length	×0.84
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.81
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.7°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	39.9 mm
battery wedge	1.8°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate c2b0d2201631

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.321 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.2% better
scenario mean	3.894 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.853 Wh/km
frame mass	93.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 28 via crossover

hypothesisWith one parent at 6.324 and the other invalid, this crossover makes a conservative bet: only fine-tune the surviving parent's geometry (plate width, sweep, deck gap, material mix) rather than importing bold changes from an untested lineage.

methodTrimmed plate width fractionally to 0.99x, softened front sweep slightly to 31.7°, widened deck gap a hair to 32.3mm, and eased the material blend from 0.05 toward 0.04 (more carbon-fiber-leaning).

resultScored 6.321 Wh/km, essentially matching its 6.324 parent (a marginal improvement) but still well short of the 6.144 best-so-far -- not a new winner. The tiny, conservative tweaks confirm this branch is near a local optimum with little headroom left along these gene directions. Next idea: try a bigger structural change (arm length or waist) from this branch rather than further micro-tuning plate width and sweep.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.315	140.8	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.052	172.2	39.2°
crosswind	3.886	165.1	34.0°
gusty_light	3.721	158.1	32.8°
hot_thin	3.537	150.3	27.7°
storm	4.853	206.2	32.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.33
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.7°
rear sweep	36.3°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	32.3 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate adee376efa76

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.354 Wh/km
vs baseline	7.7% better
scenario mean	3.916 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.876 Wh/km
frame mass	98.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 28 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents (6.238 and 6.333) were mid-pack, so this crossover bets that lengthening the arm and plate together while restoring full plate thickness could recover some of the efficiency the 6.238 parent's thinner plate had sacrificed.

methodLengthened the arm from 0.84x to 0.92x, stretched plate length from 1.02x to 1.08x, restored plate thickness to full stock (1.00x, was 0.92x), and trimmed arm width slightly to 0.77x.

resultCame in at 6.354 Wh/km, worse than both parents -- not a new winner. Restoring full plate thickness while also growing arm and plate length appears to have added more mass than the combination saved in efficiency. Worth testing the arm/plate length increase alone, keeping plate thickness at the thinner 0.92x, to see if that was the actual source of the regression.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.352	142.4	25.4°
cold_headwind	4.049	172.0	38.3°
crosswind	3.902	165.8	33.4°
gusty_light	3.746	159.1	32.3°
hot_thin	3.573	151.8	27.4°
storm	4.876	207.1	29.7°

gene	value
arm length	×0.92
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	41.1°
plate length	×1.08
plate width	×1.08
deck gap	37.2 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 1d90321c14ac

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.366 Wh/km
vs baseline	7.6% better
scenario mean	3.922 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.889 Wh/km
frame mass	97.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 28 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents (6.333 and the 6.144 best-so-far) were competitive, so this crossover bets that combining the leader's genes with a slightly wider arm waist and longer plate from the other parent could split the difference and land closer to the champion.

methodWidened arm waist to 0.64x (from 0.55x), stretched plate length marginally to 1.30x, increased front sweep to 45.0°, and added a small 0.2° battery wedge.

resultLanded at 6.366 Wh/km -- worse than both parents and well off the 6.144 best-so-far, not a new winner. The wider waist and longer plate combination seems to have added mass without a matching efficiency gain, and storm cost stayed high at 4.89. Worth retrying the crossover with the waist held at the champion's 0.55x, isolating whether the plate stretch alone is the drag on performance.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.349	142.3	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.072	173.0	38.9°
crosswind	3.902	165.8	34.1°
gusty_light	3.749	159.3	32.6°
hot_thin	3.571	151.7	27.6°
storm	4.889	207.7	31.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.85
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.64
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	45.0°
rear sweep	50.0°
plate length	×1.30
plate width	×1.25
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b154ee088551✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.451 Wh/km
vs baseline	6.3% better
scenario mean	3.977 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.948 Wh/km
frame mass	98.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 28 via designer

hypothesisThe third Claude-designer entry tests an aggressive aerodynamic idea absent from the rest of the population: a steep 15° battery wedge tilt combined with a lean, champion-like arm profile, betting that reorienting the battery mass could improve airflow or trim drag in headwind scenarios.

methodKept arm geometry close to the champion (1.15x length, 0.75x width, 0.55x waist, 4.5mm thickness) but tilted the battery wedge dramatically to 15° and widened the deck gap to 43.0mm.

resultScored 6.451 Wh/km -- better than the other two designer entries this generation but still well behind the 6.144 best-so-far. The lean arm profile helped versus the ASA and long-arm designer bets, but the steep 15° wedge likely destabilized weight distribution enough to cost efficiency across all scenarios, especially cold headwind (4.14) and storm (4.95). Worth retesting this same arm profile with the battery wedge dialed back to a modest 2-3°, isolating whether the wedge angle itself is what's hurting performance.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.392	144.1	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.143	176.0	39.1°
crosswind	3.972	168.7	34.2°
gusty_light	3.798	161.3	32.9°
hot_thin	3.611	153.4	27.8°
storm	4.948	210.2	33.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	43.0 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate ff31eeb40243✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.746 Wh/km
vs baseline	2.0% better
scenario mean	4.154 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.183 Wh/km
frame mass	115.2 g
material	asa
born	generation 28 via designer

hypothesisAs a Claude-designer entry with no parents, this candidate makes a deliberately different bet from the gene-pool's carbon-fiber consensus: switch to ASA plastic with much thicker arms, testing whether a tougher, more flexible material could tolerate a lighter overall structure.

methodSet arm length to 1.05x, arm width to 0.85x, arm waist to 0.90x, and arm thickness to a hefty 7.5mm, with plate and sweep dimensions left near stock and material switched to ASA.

resultScored 6.746 Wh/km -- far behind the 6.144 best-so-far and behind the carbon-fiber population generally. ASA's lower stiffness-to-weight ratio likely forced the thick 7.5mm arms to carry excess mass just to match carbon-fiber's rigidity, costing efficiency across every scenario including the calmer ones (3.50 calm vs 3.25-3.35 for leaders). Teaches that material swaps need to come with proportionally thinner sections to pay off -- next designer attempt should pair ASA with a much thinner arm (closer to 4mm) to actually realize a mass saving.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.500	148.7	25.9°
cold_headwind	4.391	186.5	40.5°
crosswind	4.160	176.7	35.2°
gusty_light	3.958	168.1	33.7°
hot_thin	3.735	158.7	28.2°
storm	5.183	220.2	37.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.05
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.90
arm thickness	7.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	35.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	asa

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 029bbd037a82✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.771 Wh/km
vs baseline	1.7% better
scenario mean	4.168 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.206 Wh/km
frame mass	125.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 28 via designer

hypothesisA second Claude-designer bet, this one stays with carbon-fiber but tests the opposite extreme from the champion: much longer arms (1.30x) and a thinner plate, wagering that more leverage per arm could offset the mass of a longer airframe.

methodSet arm length to 1.30x, arm width 0.90x, arm waist 0.80x, arm thickness 4.8mm, plate thickness reduced to 0.75x, and deck gap opened to 38.0mm, keeping carbon-fiber plate material.

resultScored 6.771 Wh/km, the worst of this generation's designer entries and far off the 6.144 best-so-far. The long 1.30x arms likely added bending moment and mass that the thinner plate and moderate waist couldn't compensate for, with storm cost peaking at 5.21. Teaches that arm length beyond roughly 1.1x consistently loses to the champion's shorter, stiffer-waisted arms -- future designer bets should stay under 1.1x arm length and focus mass savings on the plate instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.525	149.8	25.8°
cold_headwind	4.381	186.1	40.4°
crosswind	4.159	176.7	34.9°
gusty_light	3.973	168.8	33.5°
hot_thin	3.765	160.0	28.0°
storm	5.206	221.2	36.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.80
arm thickness	4.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 789004694cf7

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	111.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 28 via pivot

hypothesisThe stronger parent (6.324) was solid but plateaued near the front of the pack, so this pivot borrows a thicker, stubbier arm root from the weaker parent (7.727) to test whether beefing up the arm waist while stretching the main plate could shave more weight elsewhere without sacrificing rigidity.

methodStretched the main plate about 29% longer, thickened the arm waist from 0.55x to 0.88x stock, trimmed arm width slightly to 0.81x, and pulled front sweep back two degrees to 30°.

resultInvalid: the arm root tongues now collide on the main plate. Thickening the waist while also lengthening the plate crowded the root inserts into each other with no compensating spacing change. Worth testing: thicken the waist alone, holding plate length at parent levels, to isolate whether the waist gain is even beneficial before retrying it alongside a longer plate.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.32
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.88
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	35.5°
plate length	×1.29
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.1 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 4a23eaf025ff

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	84.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 28 via pivot

hypothesisParent 6.165 was close to the leaders, so this pivot bets that swapping which sweep angle leads -- pushing front sweep out and pulling rear sweep in -- borrowed from a much weaker parent, could rebalance prop-wash clearance and cut drag in the crosswind cases.

methodIncreased front sweep from 35.7° to 43.3°, reduced rear sweep from 41.2° to 37.7°, shifted material fully to carbon-fiber, and shrank plate length slightly to 0.97x.

resultInvalid: rotor disks now overlap on tip clearance. Pushing front sweep that far while pulling rear sweep in tightened the front rotor spacing past the safety margin. Teaches that front/rear sweep can't be adjusted independently past roughly +-40° without an accompanying arm-length increase to preserve tip clearance -- worth trying the same sweep swap with arm length bumped to 1.0x or higher.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.90
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	43.3°
rear sweep	37.7°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	37.3 mm
battery wedge	1.1°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 872915b45326

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	88.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 28 via pivot

hypothesisParent 6.239 was mid-pack; this pivot bets that flattening the battery wedge back to zero and thinning the arm slightly, while nudging sweep angles from a weaker donor, could recover some of the efficiency lost to the wedge tilt.

methodReduced front sweep to 30.0°, zeroed out the battery wedge (was 1.2°), increased rear sweep slightly to 42.6°, and thinned the arm from 4.2mm to 4.0mm.

resultInvalid: arm root tongues collide on the main plate, the same failure mode seen elsewhere this generation. The combination of reduced front sweep with the thinner arm apparently shifted the root geometry into the plate's tongue slots. Teaches that front sweep near 30° is a recurring collision trigger with this plate layout -- worth mapping the minimum safe front sweep for this arm-width/plate-length combo before pivoting toward it again.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.92
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	42.6°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	36.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.86
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 19c4f9847a87

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	104.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 28 via pivot

hypothesisSharing the same 6.239 parent as the sibling above, this pivot instead bets that a much thicker main plate plus a beefier arm could absorb storm loads better, testing structural margin rather than aerodynamic trim.

methodIncreased plate thickness from 0.85x to 1.15x, shifted material fully to carbon-fiber, pulled front sweep to 30.0°, and thickened the arm from 4.2mm to 4.5mm.

resultInvalid: arm root tongues collide on the main plate again. Even with a thicker plate to theoretically add margin, the 30° front sweep still crowds the root tongues -- confirming that sweep angle, not plate thickness, is the actual collision driver here. Worth testing plate thickness and arm thickness gains at the parent's original 31.8° front sweep instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.91
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	41.5°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	36.7 mm
battery wedge	1.2°
plate thickness	×1.15
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 831d879cf7db

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	112.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 28 via pivot

hypothesisOne parent was itself invalid and the other a weak 7.79, so this pivot was a long-shot exploration: aggressive front sweep and a tight deck gap paired with a strong battery-wedge tilt, betting that compressing the airframe could cut mass even if the parent lineage was unpromising.

methodIncreased front sweep from 35.8° to 44.9°, shrank the deck gap from 33.4mm to 29.0mm, tilted the battery wedge to 2.9°, and shortened the plate to 0.92x.

resultInvalid: the plate web came out too thin (1.51mm against a 1.90mm structural minimum). Shrinking deck gap and plate length simultaneously starved the main plate's web of material. Confirms this pairing of an already-marginal lineage with aggressive compression just compounds structural risk -- next time, shrink deck gap or plate length one at a time, not both, and check web thickness before committing gene combinations from an invalid parent.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.89
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.72
arm thickness	6.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	44.9°
rear sweep	41.5°
plate length	×0.92
plate width	×0.87
deck gap	29.0 mm
battery wedge	2.9°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 9f6c4b3a3e3c

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	81.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 28 via pivot

hypothesisSharing the best-so-far frame (6.144) as one parent, this pivot bets that shortening the arm and softening rear sweep could trim mass further without losing the winning frame's balance, borrowing rear-sweep and deck-gap cues from a weaker donor.

methodPulled rear sweep in from 42.0° to 37.7°, shortened arm length from 0.83x to 0.76x, widened deck gap slightly to 41.0mm, and nudged arm width up marginally to 0.76x.

resultInvalid: rotor disks overlap on tip clearance. Shortening the arm while also softening rear sweep closed the gap between rotors below the safety margin. Teaches that the best-so-far frame's arm length (0.83x) is likely close to a lower bound for its current sweep angles -- worth testing a smaller arm-length cut (e.g. 0.80x) in isolation before combining it with sweep changes.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.76
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	37.7°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	41.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 0d0345fbccd3

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.238 Wh/km
vs baseline	9.4% better
scenario mean	3.845 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.785 Wh/km
frame mass	91.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 27 via pivot

hypothesisStarting again from the strong a4a39e5410fe parent, this candidate tests whether beefing up plate thickness and width toward stock, while trimming the arm, pays off in stiffness under the adverse scenarios.

methodPlate thickness raised well toward stock, plate width widened, arm length and width both trimmed slightly.

resultValid at 6.238 Wh/km, close to but still behind the parent's 6.165 and the best-so-far 6.144. Per-scenario numbers track closely with sibling candidates, suggesting the plate-thickening/arm-trimming trade is roughly fitness-neutral in this range. Worth testing next: dial plate width back toward the parent's setting while keeping the thicker plate, to see if the extra width itself is the drag rather than the thickness.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.299	140.2	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.959	168.2	37.8°
crosswind	3.829	162.7	33.1°
gusty_light	3.681	156.4	32.0°
hot_thin	3.517	149.4	27.2°
storm	4.785	203.3	29.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.84
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.9°
rear sweep	41.0°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.08
deck gap	37.6 mm
battery wedge	0.8°
plate thickness	×0.92
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 000a251d8f76

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.239 Wh/km
vs baseline	9.4% better
scenario mean	3.846 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.785 Wh/km
frame mass	91.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 27 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two mid-pack performers (d3b9912dbce2 6.257, a31acf8f4b6e 6.279), this candidate bets that a small battery-wedge tilt plus tighter arm width could combine the better traits of both parents into something above either.

methodSmall battery wedge tilt added, plate width settled near stock, arm width tightened, material blend nudged slightly.

resultValid at 6.239 Wh/km — an improvement over both parents (6.257 and 6.279), showing the crossover successfully combined favorable traits, though it still falls short of the best-so-far (6.144). Scenario numbers track closely with the other 6.2-range candidates this generation, suggesting this design sits near a local plateau. Worth testing next: apply the same small battery-wedge tilt to the a4a39e5410fe/b5fd89cd1e22 lineage instead, since it hasn't been tried there yet.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.297	140.1	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.964	168.4	38.0°
crosswind	3.835	162.9	33.2°
gusty_light	3.681	156.4	32.1°
hot_thin	3.515	149.3	27.3°
storm	4.785	203.3	29.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.92
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	41.3°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	36.7 mm
battery wedge	1.2°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b5f4107adc71

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.281 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.8% better
scenario mean	3.870 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.821 Wh/km
frame mass	90.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 27 via pivot

hypothesisSame lineage bet as its sibling but more conservative — lengthen the arm slightly and tighten the waist instead of touching plate stock, hoping to trade a little mass for stiffness without tripping print constraints.

methodArm length nudged up slightly, arm waist tightened further, front sweep opened a touch, plate thickness eased up marginally.

resultValid at 6.281 Wh/km — worse than both the a4a39e5410fe parent (6.165) and the incumbent best (6.144), not a new winner. The storm scenario was the biggest drag, suggesting the longer arm added mass under the harshest load case without a compensating gain. Worth testing next: revert arm length back toward the parent's setting while keeping the tighter waist alone, to isolate whether the waist change helps by itself.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.307	140.5	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.014	170.5	38.8°
crosswind	3.854	163.7	33.6°
gusty_light	3.701	157.2	32.5°
hot_thin	3.526	149.8	27.5°
storm	4.821	204.8	31.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.01
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.64
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.8°
rear sweep	41.1°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	37.3 mm
battery wedge	0.6°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 1b9800417e5c✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.324 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.2% better
scenario mean	3.897 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.854 Wh/km
frame mass	93.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 27 via designer

hypothesisA second from-scratch Claude design, this one bets on a long-arm, narrow-sweep, stock-plate concept — the opposite geometry trade from its sibling 71f4f5ad9388 — to probe a different corner of the design space.

methodArm stretched much longer than the sibling design, narrower sweep angles, stock-sized plate, tight deck gap.

resultValid at 6.324 Wh/km, essentially tied with its sibling design and still trailing the leading lineage's best (6.144). The long arm with narrow sweep didn't unlock a meaningful edge over the short-arm/wide-sweep alternative, suggesting arm length and sweep angle trade off roughly evenly in this range. Worth testing next: cross this long-arm concept with the leading pivot lineage's tighter arm waist/plate proportions to see if the combination beats either parent line alone.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.320	141.0	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.052	172.1	39.2°
crosswind	3.888	165.2	34.0°
gusty_light	3.724	158.2	32.8°
hot_thin	3.541	150.4	27.7°
storm	4.854	206.2	32.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.32
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 71f4f5ad9388✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.333 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.0% better
scenario mean	3.902 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.862 Wh/km
frame mass	95.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 27 via designer

hypothesisA Claude-designed candidate built from scratch (no parents), testing a compact-arm, wide-plate, wide-sweep concept as an independent design line to diversify the population away from the dominant pivot/crossover lineage.

methodShort, tight arm with a modest thickness, paired with wide sweep angles and an oversized plate at near-stock thickness.

resultValid at 6.333 Wh/km — a solid, print-safe design but well behind the leading lineage's 6.144-6.165 range. The oversized plate likely added more mass than the wide sweep saved in drag. Worth testing next: keep this arm/sweep concept but shrink the plate back toward stock size to see if it can close the gap with the leading pivot lineage.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.332	141.6	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.045	171.8	38.7°
crosswind	3.885	165.0	33.9°
gusty_light	3.731	158.5	32.5°
hot_thin	3.554	151.0	27.5°
storm	4.862	206.6	30.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.85
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	44.0°
rear sweep	50.0°
plate length	×1.28
plate width	×1.25
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate d4698908f339

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.784 Wh/km
vs baseline	1.5% better
scenario mean	4.183 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.202 Wh/km
frame mass	129.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 27 via pivot

hypothesisWith one invalid parent (edcfb434be83) and a weak 7.622 parent, this pivot takes a speculative swing at tilting the battery wedge substantially, betting that shifting the center of gravity could unlock a bigger win than incremental plate tuning.

methodBattery wedge jumped from level to a steep tilt, plate thickness raised well above stock, arm length grown, plate length stretched.

resultValid but weak at 6.784 Wh/km — clearly worse than the population's leading edge, with every scenario (especially storm) elevated. The aggressive battery tilt combined with an oversized plate and arm likely added drag and mass simultaneously rather than isolating a CG benefit. Worth testing next: try a small battery wedge alone on a strong parent without also growing plate/arm dimensions, to isolate its true effect.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.575	151.9	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.337	184.2	39.0°
crosswind	4.179	177.6	34.0°
gusty_light	3.995	169.7	32.8°
hot_thin	3.807	161.7	27.7°
storm	5.202	221.0	32.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.06
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	5.7 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	39.2°
plate length	×1.08
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	40.6 mm
battery wedge	5.9°
plate thickness	×1.17
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 081ca0a0f90a

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	110.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 27 via pivot

hypothesisParent a4a39e5410fe (6.165) is a strong compact frame; this candidate bets that substantially thickening the arms while shrinking the plate footprint could shed structural mass without sacrificing stiffness.

methodNearly tripled arm wall thickness to 6.2mm, shrank both plate length and width by roughly 14%, thinned the plate to 71% of stock, and fattened the arm waist from the parent's slender setting to a much stockier one.

resultInvalid — the aggressive plate shrink combined with the thinner plate multiplier left the main plate web at 1.49mm, below the 1.90mm print-safety floor. The bet on redistributing mass from plate to arm went too far on the plate side. Worth testing next: keep the thicker arm but hold plate thickness near stock while only trimming plate length, not width, to preserve web integrity.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.87
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.72
arm thickness	6.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.8°
rear sweep	41.4°
plate length	×0.86
plate width	×0.88
deck gap	33.4 mm
battery wedge	0.5°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 8f202c4dd787

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	96.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 27 via pivot

hypothesisBuilding on bb796a896215 (6.236), this candidate wagers that narrowing the front sweep and thickening the plate back toward stock would improve stiffness under load, at the cost of a shorter arm to keep overall footprint down.

methodFront sweep tightened substantially, plate thickness raised back to essentially stock, arm length trimmed, plate width nudged up slightly.

resultInvalid — the sharper front sweep combined with the shorter arm brought the rotor disks close enough to overlap, failing tip-clearance. This shows sweep angle and arm length can't be shortened together past a coupled geometric limit. Worth testing next: keep the stiffer plate but back the front sweep off by several degrees to restore clearance margin.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.85
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.2°
rear sweep	42.2°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	39.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.02
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d41e5a7395ec

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	90.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 27 via pivot

hypothesisStarting from the current overall best (b5fd89cd1e22, 6.144), this candidate probes whether a much sharper rear sweep paired with a shorter, thinner arm could trim drag further on the leading design.

methodRear sweep swept out by roughly ten degrees, plate length stretched, arm length shortened, plate thickness eased down.

resultInvalid — the combination of extreme rear sweep and a shortened arm moved the arm's mounting tongue far enough that its bolts no longer land on the main plate. This is a geometric/structural coupling limit rather than a performance failure. Worth testing next: back the rear sweep off to a more moderate angle while keeping arm length closer to the parent's, to keep bolt alignment intact while still probing added sweep.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.75
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.4 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	52.3°
plate length	×1.13
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	40.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.78
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 92ebf4fd9fe0

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_top 0.20 mm, stock 1.75 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	84.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 27 via pivot

hypothesisAnother sweep at the a4a39e5410fe lineage, this one bets that loosening (fattening) the arm waist while shrinking the plate width could reduce arm flex within the same footprint.

methodArm waist relaxed substantially, plate width shrunk, arm length trimmed, front sweep opened slightly.

resultInvalid, and severely so — the top plate web collapsed to just 0.20mm against a 1.75mm stock requirement, an order of magnitude too thin. Shrinking plate width while fattening the arm waist evidently steals material disproportionately from the top plate's cross-section. Worth testing next: keep the fattened arm waist but hold plate width at or above the parent's level, since this failure looks driven almost entirely by the width cut.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.81
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.89
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.0°
rear sweep	41.4°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×0.89
deck gap	37.3 mm
battery wedge	0.6°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 30d48882bdc7

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	63.8 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 27 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the strong a4a39e5410fe with the mid-pack 6125754bf985, this candidate bets that switching to the lighter pa12_cf material could unlock a mass win while keeping other dimensions close to the fitter parent.

methodMaterial switched from carbon-fiber plate to pa12 carbon-fiber composite, arm waist loosened slightly, front sweep opened; plate dimensions otherwise stayed near parent levels.

resultInvalid — pa12_cf carries a higher minimum plate-thickness requirement, and at 1.4mm the plates fell short of the 1.6mm floor for that material. The crossover carried over cf_plate-era thin plate settings without adjusting for the new material's constraints. Worth testing next: repeat the same material swap but raise plate thickness proportionally to meet pa12_cf's floor.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.88
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.59
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.8°
rear sweep	41.2°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	37.3 mm
battery wedge	0.6°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 6389a9ef0b85

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	69.7 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 27 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the current best (b5fd89cd1e22) with 6125754bf985, this candidate makes the same pa12_cf material bet as its sibling, hoping the lighter material pairs well with the leading frame's proportions.

methodMaterial switched to pa12 carbon-fiber composite, arm thickness raised, plate length stretched slightly, arm length trimmed.

resultInvalid for the identical reason as its sibling — plates landed at 1.4mm, under pa12_cf's 1.6mm minimum. Two independent crossovers hitting the same material-thickness violation confirms this is a systematic gap in how the crossover operator carries plate-thickness genes across a material change. Worth testing next: hard-couple plate thickness to a per-material floor in the mutation/crossover operator itself.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.85
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.7 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	40.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate d0985c31f8b9

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.60 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	80.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 27 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing a solid performer (4c9c6a903ca4, 6.167) with an already-invalid parent (150e7307c260), this candidate was a higher-risk shot at combining a narrower plate width with a tightened deck gap.

methodPlate width narrowed, rear sweep opened slightly, deck gap tightened, arm waist held near the fitter parent's setting.

resultInvalid, badly so — the main plate web came out at just 0.60mm against a 1.90mm stock requirement. Inheriting traits from an already-broken parent likely carried over an unsafe plate-thickness allele that the width cut then made worse. Worth testing next: exclude invalid parents from the crossover pool, or re-validate plate stock margins before combining genes from a known-broken lineage.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.82
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.61
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.7°
rear sweep	42.9°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×0.92
deck gap	39.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 38fcbadb6e41✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (petg)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	123.5 g
material	petg
born	generation 27 via designer

hypothesisA third from-scratch design, this one explores whether switching to petg material with a much thicker, splayed arm could trade material cost for simplicity, testing the material boundary directly.

methodThick, fat-waisted arm paired with moderate sweep angles, a near-stock plate, and material set to petg instead of carbon-fiber plate.

resultInvalid — even at increased thickness, petg's lower stiffness let the arm tip deflect past the allowed limit, showing petg can't substitute for cf_plate at these arm proportions no matter how much material is added. This confirms petg is not viable for this frame's arm loads under current geometry. Worth testing next: if petg is worth revisiting, pair it with a much shorter arm length rather than just adding thickness, since deflection scales with unsupported length.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.05
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.85
arm thickness	7.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	petg

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 4c9c6a903ca4

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.167 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.4% better
scenario mean	3.800 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.734 Wh/km
frame mass	83.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 26 via mutation

hypothesisDirect mutation of the champion, testing whether easing off the arm waist taper and simplifying the material blend to pure carbon-fiber plate could reduce mass or print risk while keeping the champion's proven layout.

methodWidened the arm waist (less aggressive taper) and shifted the material parameter fully to plain cf_plate.

resultValid at 6.167 — very close to but not beating the 6.144 best-so-far, no new winner, though among the tightest results this generation. Suggests the champion's waist taper and material blend were already near-optimal, with storm again worst (4.73). Next idea: try the waist widening alone without the material shift to isolate which change cost the ~0.023 gap.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.251	138.1	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.929	166.9	38.0°
crosswind	3.784	160.7	33.1°
gusty_light	3.638	154.5	32.1°
hot_thin	3.468	147.3	27.3°
storm	4.734	201.1	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.62
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate f3cb3649708a

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.234 Wh/km
vs baseline	9.5% better
scenario mean	3.841 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.785 Wh/km
frame mass	89.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 26 via pivot

hypothesisCrossed parent a4a39e5410fe (6.165) with a weak parent, testing whether a wider arm cross-section paired with a tighter deck gap and slightly wider plate could improve the rigidity-to-mass tradeoff.

methodWidened the arm noticeably, tightened the deck gap, widened the plate a touch, and lengthened the arm slightly.

resultValid flight at 6.234 Wh/km — close to but worse than both the champion (6.144) and its direct parent (6.165), not a new winner. The wider arm likely added mass without a proportional efficiency gain, and storm remained worst at 4.79. Next idea: back off arm width toward the parent's value while keeping the tighter deck gap to isolate its effect.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.284	139.5	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.973	168.8	38.4°
crosswind	3.826	162.6	33.4°
gusty_light	3.676	156.2	32.3°
hot_thin	3.504	148.8	27.4°
storm	4.785	203.3	29.7°

gene	value
arm length	×0.92
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.5°
rear sweep	41.0°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.04
deck gap	35.8 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate bb796a896215

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.236 Wh/km
vs baseline	9.4% better
scenario mean	3.844 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.785 Wh/km
frame mass	87.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 26 via crossover

hypothesisSelf-crossover of a mid-pack parent (6.252), testing whether reshuffling its own arm length/width and sweep/deck-gap traits could find a better local combination.

methodShortened arm length, widened the arm, increased front sweep noticeably, and opened the deck gap slightly.

resultValid at 6.236, a small improvement over its 6.252 parent but still well short of the 6.144 best-so-far — not a new winner. The modest front-sweep increase with a wider arm may have helped crosswind/gusty handling marginally without hurting storm. Next idea: try the same front-sweep bump on the champion lineage, since it hasn't been tested there.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.293	139.9	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.976	168.9	38.4°
crosswind	3.825	162.5	33.4°
gusty_light	3.677	156.2	32.4°
hot_thin	3.509	149.1	27.4°
storm	4.785	203.3	30.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.90
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	40.9°
rear sweep	41.9°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	39.6 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.73
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d3b9912dbce2

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.257 Wh/km
vs baseline	9.1% better
scenario mean	3.857 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.801 Wh/km
frame mass	91.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 26 via crossover

hypothesisCrossed two solid but non-champion parents (6.218 and 6.165), betting that reducing front sweep and thickening the arm slightly could combine their respective strengths.

methodReduced front sweep, thickened the arm slightly, and lengthened the plate a touch.

resultValid at 6.257, worse than both parents and the best-so-far — not a new winner. Combining two decent parents didn't produce hybrid vigor, hinting their strengths overlap rather than complement. Next idea: cross the front-sweep and arm-thickness traits in isolation to see which one actually helps versus hurts.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.303	140.3	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.982	169.2	38.1°
crosswind	3.844	163.3	33.2°
gusty_light	3.691	156.8	32.2°
hot_thin	3.522	149.6	27.3°
storm	4.801	203.9	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.92
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.6°
rear sweep	41.2°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	36.7 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.84
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a31acf8f4b6e

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.279 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.8% better
scenario mean	3.869 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.819 Wh/km
frame mass	91.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 26 via crossover

hypothesisCrossed the champion with a mid-pack parent (6.252), testing whether a small arm-width narrowing and front-sweep pullback could nudge past the champion's plateau.

methodSlightly narrowed the arm width, trimmed the plate width, pulled front sweep back a touch, and thickened the arm marginally.

resultValid at 6.279, worse than both parents and the current best-so-far — not a new winner. Every scenario moved slightly worse rather than better, suggesting the champion's front sweep and arm width already sit near a local optimum. Next idea: isolate the front-sweep pullback alone against the champion baseline.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.304	140.4	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.011	170.4	38.7°
crosswind	3.854	163.7	33.5°
gusty_light	3.700	157.2	32.5°
hot_thin	3.524	149.7	27.5°
storm	4.819	204.7	30.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.01
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	38.6°
rear sweep	41.9°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	38.3 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.76
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 6125754bf985✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.355 Wh/km
vs baseline	7.7% better
scenario mean	3.915 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.881 Wh/km
frame mass	99.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 26 via designer

hypothesisA fresh Claude-designer proposal exploring a fuller, untapered arm waist combined with slightly shorter arms, testing whether removing the waist taper improves stiffness enough to offset the mass increase.

methodSet arm length to 0.88x, kept width at 0.75x, removed the waist taper entirely (full width), and thickened the arm to 4.5mm, with near-baseline sweep and deck gap.

resultValid at 6.355, essentially tied with the other designer candidate (6.358) but well behind the 6.144 best-so-far — not a new winner. Removing the waist taper added mass everywhere without a clear robustness payoff. Next idea: reintroduce a moderate waist taper (like the champion's ~0.55x) while keeping the shorter arm length, to isolate the taper's effect.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.340	141.9	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.058	172.4	38.7°
crosswind	3.899	165.7	33.6°
gusty_light	3.744	159.1	32.5°
hot_thin	3.566	151.5	27.5°
storm	4.881	207.4	30.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.88
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×1.00
arm thickness	4.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.7°
rear sweep	41.2°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	37.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate d1bffb1194ce✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.358 Wh/km
vs baseline	7.7% better
scenario mean	3.917 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.882 Wh/km
frame mass	95.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 26 via designer

hypothesisA fresh Claude-designer proposal (no parents) probing a long-arm, thin-waisted layout to see if extending arm reach trades off against tip mass favorably, independent of the evolutionary lineage so far.

methodSet arm length to 1.3x stock with a slim width and waist and stock 4.0mm thickness, alongside baseline sweep, plate, and deck-gap values.

resultValid at 6.358, clearly worse than the 6.144 best-so-far and behind most evolved candidates — not a new winner. Longer arms likely added drag and mass fairly evenly across scenarios (storm 4.88, calm 3.33) without a compensating gain. Next idea: try a moderately long arm (around 1.1x), closer to the evolved population's range, rather than such a large jump.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.331	141.5	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.081	173.4	39.4°
crosswind	3.910	166.1	34.1°
gusty_light	3.743	159.0	32.9°
hot_thin	3.555	151.0	27.7°
storm	4.882	207.4	33.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 8cfdbc772b8d✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.711 Wh/km
vs baseline	2.5% better
scenario mean	4.135 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.152 Wh/km
frame mass	121.7 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 26 via designer

hypothesisA fresh Claude-designer proposal testing a heavier, thicker-armed frame in a different print material (PET-CF instead of carbon-fiber plate), betting added durability might pay off in adverse scenarios despite the material's likely weight/stiffness penalty.

methodShortened arms slightly, widened them, gave a shallower waist taper, nearly doubled arm thickness to 7.0mm, thickened the plate by 10%, and switched material from cf_plate to pet_cf.

resultValid but the worst result of the generation at 6.711, far behind the 6.144 best-so-far and every other candidate — not a new winner. The material switch combined with much thicker arms and plate likely added substantial mass that dominated every scenario (storm hit 5.15, worst of the whole set). Next idea: if testing pet_cf again, pair it with thinner arms/plate closer to baseline so the material swap isn't confounded with a large mass increase.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.516	149.4	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.314	183.3	39.3°
crosswind	4.130	175.4	34.1°
gusty_light	3.947	167.7	32.9°
hot_thin	3.750	159.3	27.8°
storm	5.152	218.9	33.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.88
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.85
arm thickness	7.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.10
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 150e7307c260

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	84.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 26 via pivot

hypothesisCrossed the champion (6.144) with a much weaker sibling to test whether tightening the deck footprint while shortening the arms and adding a slight battery wedge could shave more grams off the frame.

methodPulled the deck gap in, widened the main plate, shortened the arms, and tilted the battery mount slightly, blending traits from both parents.

resultInvalid — shortening the arms while widening the plate closed the rotor tip clearance, so it never flew. The champion's arm length was already near a lower safe bound relative to plate size, so shrinking it further without compensating rotor spacing was a dead end. Worth testing: pull the deck gap in alone while holding arm length at the champion's value.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.75
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.4 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.1°
rear sweep	42.9°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.08
deck gap	35.5 mm
battery wedge	1.4°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate c5895cd1ca22

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	81.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 26 via pivot

hypothesisCrossed the champion with a weak parent, betting that a narrower plate plus slightly more rear sweep could trim mass without hurting stability, since the champion's sweep hadn't been pushed much.

methodNarrowed the main plate slightly, increased rear sweep, and nudged deck gap and front sweep by small amounts.

resultInvalid — the narrower plate no longer lined up with where the arm tongues bolt on, so the holes missed the plate edge. This shows plate width and sweep are coupled through the bolt pattern, not independent knobs. Next idea: if narrowing the plate, bound the sweep change so tongue bolt positions stay within the footprint.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.8°
rear sweep	44.3°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	40.3 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d6a34cd3d79f

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	137.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 26 via pivot

hypothesisA different strong parent (6.218) was crossed with a weak one to explore a heavier, stiffer arm/plate combo with much more rear sweep, testing whether extra structural mass could be offset by better weather robustness.

methodThickened the arms substantially, thickened the plate by about a fifth, pushed rear sweep out sharply, and lengthened the arms slightly.

resultInvalid — the same failure as candidate 2: the large sweep jump shifted the arm tongue off the plate's bolt pattern. Teaches that big sweep jumps (5°+) are risky regardless of thickness changes. Next idea: cap sweep mutation step size or re-derive bolt placement from sweep angle so it always tracks the arm.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.01
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	6.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	46.6°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	36.5 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×1.21
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b908bd5d3853

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	88.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 26 via pivot

hypothesisCrossed parent a4a39e5410fe (6.165) with a weak sibling, testing whether pulling rear sweep back toward front sweep and slightly beefing up arm thickness could improve efficiency while shortening arms a touch.

methodReduced rear sweep, thickened the arm slightly, shortened arm length a bit, and shifted the material blend parameter.

resultInvalid — the shortened, less-swept arm let the rotor disks overlap again, the same clearance failure as candidate 1. Reinforces that arm length can't drop much below the champion's range without more sweep, not less, to keep rotors clear. Next idea: test the rear-sweep reduction alone while holding arm length at the parent's value.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.85
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.4 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.9°
rear sweep	38.6°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	37.4 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate edcfb434be83

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	104.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 26 via pivot

hypothesisCrossed the champion with a weak parent, betting a much thicker arm plus reduced rear sweep and shorter arm length could add strength for the storm scenario without much mass penalty.

methodNearly 1.5x'd arm thickness, pulled rear sweep in, thinned the plate slightly, and shortened arm length a bit.

resultInvalid — again the shortened arm combined with reduced sweep closed rotor clearance. Three candidates this generation died the same way, strongly suggesting arm-length reduction is only safe paired with more sweep, not less. Next idea: test thicker arms for storm robustness while keeping arm length and sweep at the champion's baseline.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.85
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	5.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	39.2°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	40.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.74
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate f1e6ec0c92fb

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_top 1.01 mm, stock 1.75 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	86.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 26 via pivot

hypothesisCrossed parent b127b1130025 (6.285) with a weak sibling, exploring whether shrinking the plate footprint and thinning it out, with a lighter battery wedge, could cut mass further.

methodShrank plate length noticeably, thinned the plate back down, shifted the material blend, and reduced battery wedge angle slightly.

resultInvalid — the combined plate-length shrink and thinning left the plate's top web thinner than the manufacturing stock allows (about 1.0mm vs a 1.75mm minimum), failing a print-feasibility check rather than a flight constraint. Shows plate length and thickness reductions compound on local wall thickness. Next idea: shrink plate length while holding thickness closer to stock.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.94
arm width	×0.88
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.1°
rear sweep	40.0°
plate length	×0.88
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	38.9 mm
battery wedge	1.5°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate f321be7fc2ea

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.218 Wh/km
vs baseline	9.7% better
scenario mean	3.832 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.772 Wh/km
frame mass	88.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 25 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two mid-pack frames sharing similar genetics but different sweep angles tested whether a modest front-sweep reduction plus a slightly longer arm could edge past both without tripping any clearance limits.

methodReduced front sweep a couple degrees, tightened the deck gap slightly, lengthened the arms a little, and thinned the plate marginally.

resultValid and the best result of this generation's crosses at 6.218 Wh/km, beating both parents (6.204 and 6.241) — though still short of the 6.144 best-so-far. Every scenario improved in lockstep versus its parents, including storm dropping to 4.77, suggesting the front-sweep/arm-length combo is a genuinely efficient direction rather than a lucky single-scenario win. Worth testing: push front sweep down a few more degrees from this point while watching for the tip-clearance failures that killed several other candidates this round.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.279	139.3	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.959	168.2	38.0°
crosswind	3.817	162.1	33.1°
gusty_light	3.668	155.8	32.1°
hot_thin	3.498	148.6	27.3°
storm	4.772	202.7	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.92
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.1°
rear sweep	41.2°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	36.7 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.84
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 4bd04d28f4fd

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.252 Wh/km
vs baseline	9.2% better
scenario mean	3.853 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.797 Wh/km
frame mass	90.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 25 via crossover

hypothesisA second cross off the same mid-pack parent, this time paired with a weaker frame, tested whether pushing front sweep further out than its sibling candidate would trade off differently against plate length.

methodIncreased front sweep further than the previous cross, lengthened the plate slightly, and narrowed the arms a touch.

resultValid at 6.252 Wh/km, edging out both parents (6.241 and 6.36) and slightly ahead of its sibling c242efc28261, but still short of the 6.144 champion. The consistent per-scenario pattern (storm worst at 4.80) suggests these mid-pack crosses are converging on a shared local plateau rather than breaking new ground. Worth testing: introduce a bigger jump in rear sweep or arm length to escape this plateau instead of fine-tuning front sweep further.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.297	140.1	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.986	169.3	38.4°
crosswind	3.838	163.1	33.4°
gusty_light	3.686	156.6	32.4°
hot_thin	3.515	149.3	27.4°
storm	4.797	203.8	30.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.01
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	39.1°
rear sweep	41.9°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	38.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.76
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate c242efc28261

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.263 Wh/km
vs baseline	9.1% better
scenario mean	3.860 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.806 Wh/km
frame mass	90.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 25 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two mid-pack frames from opposite ends of sweep and plate-width space bet that a narrower front sweep paired with a wider plate could shave drag without the clearance failures seen elsewhere this generation.

methodPulled front sweep in, widened the main plate, added a couple degrees of battery wedge, and tightened the deck gap slightly.

resultValid at 6.263 Wh/km, beating both parents (6.241 and 6.325) but still well off the 6.144 best-so-far. Storm remained the heaviest scenario at 4.81, suggesting the frame is still fundamentally limited by high-wind drag rather than any structural inefficiency. Worth testing: hold this front-sweep/plate-width combo fixed and instead vary rear sweep to attack the storm scenario specifically.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.301	140.2	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.994	169.7	38.5°
crosswind	3.847	163.4	33.5°
gusty_light	3.693	156.9	32.4°
hot_thin	3.520	149.5	27.5°
storm	4.806	204.2	30.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.01
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.7°
rear sweep	41.7°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×1.08
deck gap	36.5 mm
battery wedge	1.8°
plate thickness	×0.76
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b127b1130025

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.285 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.7% better
scenario mean	3.873 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.823 Wh/km
frame mass	91.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 25 via crossover

hypothesisBlending the two best-of-round parents (a lean, efficient frame and a heavier-plated one) was a bet that splitting the difference on arm sizing and plate thickness would combine the lean parent's low drag with the thicker parent's stiffness.

methodWidened the arms slightly, lengthened them a touch, thickened the main plate, and tilted the battery wedge up to almost 2 degrees relative to the leaner parent.

resultLanded at 6.285 Wh/km — better than the heavier parent (6.311) but worse than the leaner one (6.165), and nowhere near the 6.144 best-so-far. The extra plate thickness likely added weight without a matching aerodynamic payoff, especially visible in the storm scenario (4.82, the worst leg). Worth testing: keep the leaner parent's plate thickness untouched and only borrow the battery wedge change in isolation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.313	140.8	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.010	170.4	38.6°
crosswind	3.856	163.8	33.5°
gusty_light	3.705	157.4	32.4°
hot_thin	3.532	150.1	27.5°
storm	4.823	204.9	30.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.88
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.4°
rear sweep	40.0°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	38.8 mm
battery wedge	1.9°
plate thickness	×0.78
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate ea79cd197813

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.302 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.5% better
scenario mean	3.884 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.835 Wh/km
frame mass	95.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 25 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two frames close in fitness to the champion tried adding plate thickness for extra stiffness margin, betting the efficiency cost would be small.

methodNearly doubled the plate-thickness multiplier relative to its leaner parent, increased front sweep, thickened the arms slightly, and added a hint of battery wedge.

resultValid but worse than both parents at 6.302 Wh/km (parents were 6.204 and 6.165). The heavier plate clearly cost more in carried weight than it saved in stiffness-driven efficiency, confirming this frame family is already thin enough to be near its efficiency optimum. Worth testing: revert plate thickness to the leaner parent's value and keep only the front-sweep change to isolate its effect.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.329	141.4	25.4°
cold_headwind	4.008	170.3	38.0°
crosswind	3.868	164.3	33.1°
gusty_light	3.717	157.9	32.1°
hot_thin	3.549	150.8	27.3°
storm	4.835	205.4	29.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.90
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.5°
rear sweep	41.2°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.98
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate fb02c87c4367

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	87.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 25 via crossover

hypothesisA self-cross of the round's second-best frame, probing whether re-mixing its own genes with mild jitter could find a nearby better local optimum without introducing outside risk.

methodPulled the rear sweep back a few degrees, thickened the arms slightly to 4.3 mm, and increased the battery wedge to about 1.3 degrees, all while keeping the same carbon plate material.

resultInvalid — the rotor disks now overlap on tip clearance. Shrinking the rear sweep while keeping already-narrow arms pushed the rotor swept circles into each other, showing this parent's geometry has very little sweep margin left to spend. Worth testing: pair any further rear-sweep reduction with a compensating increase in arm length so tip clearance is preserved.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.88
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.7°
rear sweep	37.8°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	37.3 mm
battery wedge	1.3°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 328a9378743e

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	84.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 25 via mutation

hypothesisA mutation off a mid-pack parent tried trimming plate width and pulling both sweep angles inward, betting that a more symmetric, compact planform would cut drag further.

methodNarrowed the main plate, reduced front and rear sweep to nearly equal angles, and nudged the material blend slightly within the carbon-plate family.

resultInvalid — the plate web came out at 1.23 mm against a 1.90 mm stock minimum. The plate-width trim combined with the parent's already-thin plate multiplier crossed the manufacturability floor. Worth testing: cap plate-width mutations so plate thickness times width never dips below the stock web minimum.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.89
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.2°
rear sweep	37.2°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×0.96
deck gap	37.3 mm
battery wedge	0.7°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 438d40390d5f

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	94.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 25 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing a wide-plate frame with a mid-performing one aimed to shrink the deck footprint for lower drag while keeping the wider plate's stiffness.

methodPulled the front sweep in, shrank the deck gap noticeably, and lengthened the arms while keeping the wide plate from one parent.

resultInvalid — the tightened deck gap left no room for the FC/ESC stack. This is a reminder that deck gap has a hard functional floor independent of aerodynamic gains from a smaller footprint. Worth testing: treat deck gap as a protected gene during crossover, only shrinking it gradually and checking against the stack's known minimum before combining with other changes.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.24
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.7°
rear sweep	35.1°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.17
deck gap	22.2 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate c1b8464d240c

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	88.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 25 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing a mid-pack frame with the reigning champion aimed to inject the champion's genes into a slightly different sweep/waist configuration, hoping to beat 6.144 outright.

methodReduced rear sweep, added a couple degrees of battery wedge, shortened the main plate slightly, and thickened the arm waist relative to the champion.

resultInvalid — rotor disks overlap again. Even breeding from the best-so-far frame, dialing back rear sweep while thickening the waist ate into the tip clearance margin the champion depends on. Worth testing: when breeding from the champion, hold rear sweep fixed and vary only one geometry axis at a time to isolate what it can tolerate.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.90
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.62
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.2°
rear sweep	34.4°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	36.5 mm
battery wedge	2.2°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 996b5884da8b

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pla_plus (1.6 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	90.4 g
material	pla_plus
born	generation 25 via immigrant

hypothesisA fresh random immigrant was injected to counter the population's narrowing convergence around carbon-plate frames, testing whether a PLA+ build with a strongly wedged battery could open a new region of the design space.

methodUsed long, fat-waisted arms, a large rear sweep, and a steep 11.6-degree battery wedge, all built in PLA+ instead of carbon plate.

resultInvalid — the plates came out just under the minimum thickness PLA+ needs to hold structural load. This shows immigrants that switch material families need their plate-thickness gene scaled up to match the weaker material, which this random draw didn't do. Worth testing: bias future PLA+ immigrants toward higher plate-thickness multipliers by default.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.22
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.92
arm thickness	4.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.5°
rear sweep	48.2°
plate length	×1.10
plate width	×1.10
deck gap	42.5 mm
battery wedge	11.6°
plate thickness	×0.79
material	pla_plus

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate a375c82f0768

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	108.8 g
material	petg
born	generation 25 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing an unscored candidate with a mid-pack parent explored a heavier PETG build with a much steeper front sweep, betting that added stiffness could offset PETG's weight penalty.

methodWidened the arms to full width, nearly doubled plate thickness, switched material toward PETG, and pushed front sweep out past 50 degrees.

resultInvalid — the rotor ended up too close to the deck/battery stack. The steep front sweep combined with the thick plate pulled the front rotor arms inward toward the fuselage, teaching that aggressive sweep and thick plates can't be combined without also opening up the deck gap. Worth testing: pair large front-sweep increases with a compensating deck-gap increase.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.93
arm width	×1.00
arm waist	×0.95
arm thickness	4.9 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	51.6°
rear sweep	38.1°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.13
deck gap	23.0 mm
battery wedge	6.8°
plate thickness	×1.46
material	petg

parents

candidate 80f9d365c89e

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	85.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 25 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the champion with a close mid-pack frame tried widening the deck gap and pushing both sweep angles outward, hoping more physical margin would translate to a manufacturing-safe frame with champion-level efficiency.

methodIncreased the deck gap, pushed front and rear sweep both outward by a couple degrees, and thickened the main plate slightly relative to the champion.

resultInvalid — the arm tongue bolts no longer land on the main plate. Moving both sweep angles at once shifted the arm roots enough that the bolt pattern from one parent no longer aligns with the plate footprint of the other. Worth testing: when crossing sweep angles from two parents, verify the resulting arm-root bolt pattern against the inherited plate outline before accepting the cross.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.86
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	38.4°
rear sweep	43.2°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	43.3 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.77
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate c9ae43e3c5c7

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	94.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 25 via crossover

hypothesisA self-cross of a long-armed, wide-waisted mid-pack frame probed whether tightening both sweep angles could recover some of the efficiency lost to its bulky waist.

methodPulled both front and rear sweep inward by a few degrees and added a touch of battery wedge, keeping the long arms and thick waist unchanged.

resultInvalid — the arm root tongues now collide on the main plate. With arms already stretched to 1.28x length and a tight 26.7 mm deck gap, tightening the sweep angles crowded the arm roots into each other at the plate. Worth testing: this long-arm/wide-waist lineage likely needs a larger deck gap before its sweep angles can be tightened any further.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.28
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.69
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	34.3°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.7 mm
battery wedge	1.4°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d4b23e70f27d

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	82.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 25 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the champion with a mid-pack frame tried shortening the arms for lower mass, betting the champion's genes would buffer against the usual clearance risk of a shorter arm.

methodShortened the arms noticeably, thickened the plate, tightened the deck gap slightly, and pulled front sweep in a touch relative to the champion.

resultInvalid — rotor disks overlap once more. Even starting from the champion, cutting arm length without also reducing sweep proportionally ran the rotors into each other, the same failure mode that killed two other candidates this generation. Worth testing: this generation strongly suggests arm-length and sweep genes need to be varied together, not independently, in future crossovers.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.77
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.7°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	39.4 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.76
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 245f65ba6586new best when evaluated✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.172 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.4% better
scenario mean	3.804 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.737 Wh/km
frame mass	84.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 22 via designer

hypothesisThis hand-designed candidate bets that the champion's proven lean-arm/cf_plate recipe can be improved further by shortening arms slightly, moderating both sweep angles, and removing the battery wedge entirely for a cleaner aero profile.

methodShortened arm length below the champion's, kept the same lean waist, thickness, and cf_plate material, moderated front and rear sweep to a balanced 36°/42° split, zeroed the battery wedge, and opened the deck gap to 38mm.

resultNEW WINNER: fitness 6.172, beating the prior best-so-far of 6.257 and every other candidate this generation. It likely won by pairing the already-proven lean-arm/cf_plate structure with zero wedge drag and balanced, moderate sweep instead of pushing either extreme — every scenario improved, including storm dropping to 4.74. Worth testing next: shorten arm length even further from this new baseline to probe for more efficiency before hitting a structural floor.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.254	138.3	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.931	167.0	38.1°
crosswind	3.788	160.9	33.2°
gusty_light	3.641	154.7	32.1°
hot_thin	3.471	147.5	27.3°
storm	4.737	201.2	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.92
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate da2dd8d05668

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.199 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.0% better
scenario mean	3.822 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.754 Wh/km
frame mass	86.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 24 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the champion (a4a39e5410fe, 6.165) with a more heavily swept but weaker frame (ca3dd4c695e5, 6.438) tested whether borrowing wider sweep angles could improve the crosswind/storm scenarios that dominate the champion's cost.

methodWidened front sweep from 35.7° to 39.0°, slightly narrowed rear sweep (41.2°→40.0°), thickened the arm to 4.2mm, and trimmed plate width marginally.

result6.199 — clearly better than the swept-wing donor parent (6.438) but slightly worse than the champion (6.165), so no breakthrough. Storm cost (4.75) barely moved from the champion's own level, suggesting sweep angle is a secondary lever compared to arm length and plate thickness. Worth testing: stack this wider front sweep onto the shorter arm/wider deck-gap recipe that ended up winning this generation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.280	139.4	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.941	167.4	38.1°
crosswind	3.803	161.6	33.1°
gusty_light	3.658	155.4	32.1°
hot_thin	3.495	148.5	27.3°
storm	4.754	202.0	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.89
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	39.0°
rear sweep	40.0°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	37.3 mm
battery wedge	0.7°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 720187ca68c8✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.204 Wh/km
vs baseline	9.9% better
scenario mean	3.824 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.761 Wh/km
frame mass	88.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 24 via designer

hypothesisA second designer probe testing whether shrinking arm length toward the evolved population's range, while thickening the plate instead of the arm, could match or beat the crossover-derived frontier.

methodSet arm length to ×0.90 with thin 4.0mm arm and ×0.75 arm width, stock sweep angles, but bumped plate thickness to ×0.85 — notably thicker than the ×0.70 baseline most crossovers use.

result6.204 — close to but not surpassing best-so-far (6.165), and better than every crossover this generation. The thicker plate appears to carry real load-bearing benefit even as the arm shrinks, narrowing the gap almost entirely on plate thickness alone. Worth testing: push arm length shorter still while keeping this thicker plate — the exact direction the next designer candidate took.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.274	139.1	25.3°
cold_headwind	3.944	167.5	37.9°
crosswind	3.811	161.9	33.1°
gusty_light	3.660	155.5	32.1°
hot_thin	3.493	148.4	27.3°
storm	4.761	202.2	29.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.90
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.7°
rear sweep	41.2°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 0cd370019308

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.241 Wh/km
vs baseline	9.4% better
scenario mean	3.847 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.790 Wh/km
frame mass	89.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 24 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents sat just above the leading pack (6.251, 6.257); the bet was that a thinner plate could shave mass-driven losses without sacrificing the compact arm geometry both already shared.

methodThinned the plate from ×0.70 to ×0.76 and slightly shortened arm length from ×1.05 to ×1.01, keeping the rest close to the parent average.

result6.241 — beats both parents but remains short of the pre-generation best-so-far (6.165). Storm again dominates the cost (4.79), so the thinner plate paid off modestly without touching the real bottleneck. Worth testing: combine this thinner plate with the shorter-arm, wider deck-gap recipe that later produced this generation's new winner.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.290	139.7	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.978	169.0	38.4°
crosswind	3.833	162.8	33.4°
gusty_light	3.680	156.4	32.3°
hot_thin	3.508	149.0	27.4°
storm	4.790	203.5	29.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.01
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.4°
rear sweep	41.8°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	38.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.76
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 5bebc5dacd96

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.311 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.4% better
scenario mean	3.890 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.842 Wh/km
frame mass	94.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 24 via crossover

hypothesisParents b0162c244cd9 (6.343) and 245f65ba6586 (6.172) bracketed a promising mid-pack design; the bet was that shrinking plate length and tightening deck gap while keeping the wider plate width could combine the best of both.

methodShrank plate length from ×1.02 to ×0.97, tightened deck gap from 24.6mm to 23.0mm, trimmed arm length slightly (×1.26→×1.23), and thickened the plate marginally.

result6.311 — worse than the better parent (6.172) and only marginally ahead of the weaker one. The wide plate (×1.17) combined with a tighter deck gap likely increased prop-wash interference, pushing storm cost to 4.84. Worth testing: revert plate width toward parity before testing deck-gap tightening in isolation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.329	141.4	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.021	170.8	38.8°
crosswind	3.880	164.8	33.7°
gusty_light	3.720	158.0	32.6°
hot_thin	3.548	150.7	27.5°
storm	4.842	205.7	31.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.23
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.61
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.2°
rear sweep	35.2°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.17
deck gap	23.0 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 9f7085e5999a

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.321 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.2% better
scenario mean	3.895 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.852 Wh/km
frame mass	94.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 24 via crossover

hypothesisParents a51008a41c5c (6.273) and 11f493f72da5 (6.251) were both average performers; the bet was that relaxing the arm's necked-down waist profile could shed arm mass without hurting stiffness.

methodWidened the arm waist from ×0.55 to ×0.69 (a less aggressive taper), trimmed plate length slightly, and nudged the material blend (0.12→0.14).

result6.321 — worse than both parents. Relaxing the waist taper added drag/mass without a compensating gain elsewhere. This suggests the aggressive ×0.55 waist taper common in the leading designs is load-bearing, not incidental. Worth testing: leave the waist alone and test the plate-length trim and material nudge independently to isolate any real benefit.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.324	141.2	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.042	171.7	39.2°
crosswind	3.883	164.9	33.8°
gusty_light	3.723	158.2	32.7°
hot_thin	3.545	150.6	27.6°
storm	4.852	206.1	31.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.28
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.69
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.2°
rear sweep	35.7°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.7 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 0fb992acf725

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.325 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.2% better
scenario mean	3.898 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.854 Wh/km
frame mass	95.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 24 via crossover

hypothesisParents a51008a41c5c (6.273) and 1f1500f3aa17 (6.292) were both underperformers; the bet was that a slightly thicker arm plus a trimmed plate and material pulled back toward cf_plate could rescue the pairing.

methodTrimmed plate length slightly, thickened the arm from 4.0mm to 4.3mm, and pulled the material blend back toward cf_plate (0.12→0.08).

result6.325 — worse than both parents, echoing the overcorrection seen in a sibling candidate this generation. On this longer-arm family (~×1.27), extra arm thickness added mass without a stiffness payoff. Worth testing: apply the same plate-length trim to the champion's shorter-arm recipe instead of this longer-arm lineage, where thickness gains behave differently.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.328	141.4	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.040	171.6	38.8°
crosswind	3.888	165.2	33.7°
gusty_light	3.727	158.3	32.6°
hot_thin	3.550	150.8	27.5°
storm	4.854	206.2	31.3°

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.3°
rear sweep	36.3°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	27.1 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a5e052287a6b✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.360 Wh/km
vs baseline	7.6% better
scenario mean	3.919 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.884 Wh/km
frame mass	98.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 24 via designer

hypothesisA hand-designed control probe from the Claude-designer, testing a near-stock baseline (unit-scale arm length, heavy arm) to bracket where the population's aggressive slimming was actually paying off.

methodSet arm length to parity (×1.00), arm width near-stock (×0.95), a heavy 4.5mm arm thickness, and stock-ish sweep angles (36.0°/42.0°) with baseline plate thickness.

result6.36 — well behind the pre-generation best-so-far (6.165) and behind most crossovers this generation. The thick 4.5mm arm and near-stock length carries more mass than the evolved population's slimmer arms without buying back stability, confirming the population's slimming trend is real signal. Worth testing: anchor the next designer probe closer to the ×0.80-0.90 arm-length band that's producing winners rather than re-testing near-stock baselines.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.340	141.9	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.069	172.9	38.8°
crosswind	3.907	166.0	33.7°
gusty_light	3.746	159.2	32.6°
hot_thin	3.565	151.4	27.5°
storm	4.884	207.5	31.3°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×0.95
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.5°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 8b748ed1a775

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.453 Wh/km
vs baseline	6.3% better
scenario mean	3.974 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.957 Wh/km
frame mass	102.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 24 via crossover

hypothesisParents ca3dd4c695e5 (6.438) and 54a73703249e (6.257) were both mid-pack; the bet was that blending their plate footprint and rear sweep could find a cheaper compromise than either alone.

methodAdjusted plate length toward ×0.96, widened rear sweep from 36.2° to 38.2°, thickened the plate slightly, and nudged arm width up marginally.

result6.453 — worse than both parents and the weakest valid result this generation. The long arm (×1.31) combined with a wider rear sweep raised cost uniformly across every scenario, pointing to compounding drag rather than a fix. Worth testing: retire this long-arm pairing and instead cross it with a short-arm design to pull arm length back down before touching sweep again.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.378	143.5	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.148	176.2	39.9°
crosswind	3.963	168.3	34.4°
gusty_light	3.795	161.2	33.1°
hot_thin	3.605	153.2	27.8°
storm	4.957	210.6	34.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.31
arm width	×0.97
arm waist	×0.63
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.9°
rear sweep	38.2°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	33.1 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate f061d93bb172

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	108.7 g
material	pla_plus
born	generation 24 via crossover

hypothesisThe weaker parent (62627086f773, 6.291) was dragged down by a bulkier plate and mid-pack material; the bet was that blending toward a lighter PLA-plus material mix with a steeper front sweep and slightly shorter arm could trim mass and drag together.

methodShifted the material blend toward PLA-plus (0.63), steepened front sweep from 50.3° to 52.0°, widened the plate from ×1.10 to ×1.12, and shortened the arm from ×0.95 to ×0.93.

resultInvalid — rotor too close to deck/battery. Shortening the arm without a compensating deck-gap increase closed the tip clearance envelope. This confirms arm-length cuts must be paired with a deck-gap or sweep adjustment, not applied in isolation. Worth testing: repeat this material/sweep blend but hold arm length at the parent's ×0.95, or raise deck gap to compensate for the shorter arm.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.93
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.93
arm thickness	5.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	52.0°
rear sweep	38.0°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.12
deck gap	23.4 mm
battery wedge	6.6°
plate thickness	×1.59
material	pla_plus

parents

candidate 3822abdf372d

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	70.6 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 24 via crossover

hypothesisBoth cf_plate-leaning parents (6.257, 6.291) were mid-pack; the bet was that nudging the material blend further toward the stiffer pa12_cf composite plus a small battery tilt could trim weight further.

methodAdded a small battery wedge (0°→0.9°), shifted the material blend toward pa12_cf (0.13→0.18), and thickened the arm slightly (4.0→4.2mm).

resultInvalid — plates too thin for pa12_cf's minimum gauge (1.4mm vs 1.6mm required). Pushing the material gene toward pa12_cf without a matching plate-thickness bump breaks its stiffness floor. Worth testing: repeat this material shift but force plate thickness above the pa12_cf minimum before evaluating.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.3°
rear sweep	36.2°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.1 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate f78c8b2017ba

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	96.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 24 via crossover

hypothesisSame two parents with roles reversed; the bet was that thickening the plate while trimming its footprint could offset the thin-plate structural risk seen elsewhere in this lineage.

methodThickened the plate from ×0.76 to ×0.89 and trimmed plate width and length slightly, with a small material nudge (0.00→0.05).

resultInvalid — plate web too thin (1.34mm vs 1.75mm required). Even with more plate thickness, shrinking plate length/width dropped the load-bearing web below its floor. Worth testing: keep the thickness gain but freeze plate length/width at the parent's values to isolate which dimension actually drives the web failure.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.31
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.9°
rear sweep	39.3°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	25.7 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.89
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 887136a7a6fe

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	82.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 24 via crossover

hypothesisPairing the reigning champion (a4a39e5410fe, 6.165) with a weaker but differently-shaped frame (1f1500f3aa17, 6.292) tested whether shortening the champion's arm and adding battery tilt could squeeze out more efficiency from the winning lineage.

methodShortened arm length from ×0.88 to ×0.79, increased battery wedge from 0.6° to 2.2°, thickened the arm to 4.2mm, and opened deck gap slightly (37.3→38.1mm).

resultInvalid — rotor disks overlap. The arm shortening outran the small deck-gap increase, closing the tip clearance between rotors. This suggests the champion's arm length is near a lower bound given its current sweep angles. Worth testing: the same arm shortening paired with a wider sweep spread to buy back disk clearance instead of relying on deck gap alone.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.79
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.9°
rear sweep	41.3°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	38.1 mm
battery wedge	2.2°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 37fc9305d30c

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	66.2 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 24 via crossover

hypothesisA self-cross of a solid mid-pack frame (fa569e2ab088, 6.216) probed whether pushing the material blend further toward pa12_cf plus opening the deck gap could unlock extra efficiency from an already-decent design.

methodShifted the material blend from 0.06 to 0.30 toward pa12_cf, widened deck gap from 36.8mm to 39.5mm, widened the plate slightly, and shortened the arm marginally.

resultInvalid — plates too thin for pa12_cf's minimum gauge, the same failure mode as an earlier candidate this generation. Two independent crossovers now hit this exact wall, meaning it's a systematic operator gap rather than a fluke. Worth testing: add a coupled repair step that scales plate thickness automatically whenever the material gene crosses into the pa12_cf range.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.92
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.3°
rear sweep	41.6°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.04
deck gap	39.5 mm
battery wedge	2.6°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate fa569e2ab088

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.216 Wh/km
vs baseline	9.7% better
scenario mean	3.832 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.768 Wh/km
frame mass	85.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 23 via crossover

hypothesisThe reigning best (245f65ba6586, 6.172) flew with a flat, untilted battery; this cross bet that borrowing a modest battery-wedge tilt from its weaker co-parent might improve trim in crosswind/gusty conditions.

methodAdded a small battery wedge tilt, nudged front sweep forward slightly, tightened the deck gap, and thickened the arms marginally.

resultCame in at 6.216 — worse than the 6.172 best parent, so not a new winner, though it beat its other parent (6.305). Every scenario ticked up slightly versus the flat-battery baseline, suggesting the wedge tilt adds inefficiency without compensating gains. Next: test the battery-wedge trait in isolation against the champion's exact baseline to confirm wedge angle alone is a net negative here.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.281	139.4	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.964	168.4	38.2°
crosswind	3.815	162.1	33.2°
gusty_light	3.665	155.7	32.3°
hot_thin	3.496	148.5	27.4°
storm	4.768	202.6	29.7°

gene	value
arm length	×0.90
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.3°
rear sweep	41.6°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	36.8 mm
battery wedge	2.6°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 11f493f72da5

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.251 Wh/km
vs baseline	9.2% better
scenario mean	3.851 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.799 Wh/km
frame mass	88.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 23 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the champion (245f65ba6586, 6.172) with the mid-pack incumbent (1704aea48de9, 6.274) bet that borrowing the incumbent's longer arm and richer material fraction could push past the champion's plateau.

methodLengthened the arm noticeably, increased front sweep, raised the material fraction, and lengthened the plate slightly.

resultScored 6.251 — better than the weaker parent (6.274) but worse than the champion parent and best-so-far. The longer arm and extra material added weight faster than they added stability, so this direction underperforms the champion's shorter, leaner arm. Next: keep the richer material fraction but revert arm length to the champion's shorter value to isolate which change actually helps.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.286	139.6	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.001	170.0	38.7°
crosswind	3.834	162.9	33.6°
gusty_light	3.682	156.4	32.5°
hot_thin	3.505	148.9	27.5°
storm	4.799	203.9	31.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.05
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.5°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	38.1 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 54a73703249enew best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.257 Wh/km
vs baseline	9.1% better
scenario mean	3.857 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.801 Wh/km
frame mass	90.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 15 via pivot

hypothesisParent was already essentially at the front (6.286), so this pivot makes a small, careful bet: trim the arm waist and length just a bit further to shed the last bit of unneeded mass.

methodTightened arm waist slightly, shortened arm length a touch, nudged arm width up marginally, and made a tiny material blend adjustment.

result6.257 — a NEW WINNER, edging past the previous best-so-far of 6.274. Every scenario improved a little, including storm dropping to 4.80, suggesting this lands right at a mass/stiffness sweet spot rather than winning on any single scenario. Worth exploring rear sweep near 36° next to see if it compounds with this gain.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.297	140.1	25.4°
cold_headwind	3.989	169.4	38.8°
crosswind	3.848	163.5	33.6°
gusty_light	3.689	156.7	32.5°
hot_thin	3.516	149.4	27.5°
storm	4.801	204.0	30.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.5°
rear sweep	36.2°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.1 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a51008a41c5c

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.273 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.9% better
scenario mean	3.866 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.813 Wh/km
frame mass	91.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 23 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two closely-matched mid-pack frames (54a73703249e, 6.257 and champion 245f65ba6586, 6.172) bet that nudging plate length and deck gap toward the champion's values, while keeping the other parent's arm geometry, could close the gap to the champion.

methodLengthened the plate slightly, opened the deck gap a bit, and trimmed the material fraction marginally.

resultScored 6.273 — essentially flat versus its 6.257 parent and worse than the champion parent, not a new winner. The arm geometry inherited from the weaker parent appears to be the limiting factor, since plate/deck-gap tweaks alone couldn't close the gap. Next: graft this frame's plate/deck-gap values directly onto the champion's arm geometry to isolate whether arms or plate details are capping performance.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.305	140.4	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.001	170.0	38.9°
crosswind	3.857	163.9	33.7°
gusty_light	3.698	157.1	32.6°
hot_thin	3.524	149.7	27.5°
storm	4.813	204.5	31.3°

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.5°
rear sweep	36.3°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	27.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 62627086f773

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.291 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.6% better
scenario mean	3.877 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.829 Wh/km
frame mass	93.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 23 via crossover

hypothesisSelf-cross of the current mid-pack incumbent (1704aea48de9, 6.274) testing whether a thicker plate alone, with everything else held constant, could improve stiffness enough to offset the added weight.

methodThickened the plate multiplier from about ×0.70 to ×0.76, with no other changes.

resultScored 6.291 — a small regression versus the 6.274 parent, worse across essentially every scenario. The extra plate thickness added mass without a matching efficiency gain, suggesting this frame is already near its plate-thickness optimum. Next: try thinning the plate slightly below ×0.70, if the web-thickness constraint allows, to check whether the parent was already over-built there.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.308	140.5	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.015	170.6	38.9°
crosswind	3.872	164.5	33.7°
gusty_light	3.708	157.5	32.6°
hot_thin	3.529	149.9	27.5°
storm	4.829	205.1	31.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.31
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	39.3°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.76
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 1f1500f3aa17

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.292 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.6% better
scenario mean	3.878 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.828 Wh/km
frame mass	91.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 23 via crossover

hypothesisSame self-cross incumbent (1704aea48de9, 6.274); this sibling variant bet that shifting more sweep to the rear arm and less to the front could improve yaw stability in crosswind/gusty scenarios.

methodIncreased rear sweep noticeably, reduced front sweep slightly, and shortened the arm length marginally.

resultScored 6.292 — essentially a wash with its sibling 62627086f773 and slightly worse than the 6.274 parent. The sweep rebalancing didn't move the needle, implying this frame's performance is more sensitive to arm/plate sizing than to sweep angle at this scale. Next: try a much larger front/rear sweep asymmetry to see if a bigger swing is needed to show any effect.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.315	140.8	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.023	170.9	39.2°
crosswind	3.863	164.1	33.7°
gusty_light	3.706	157.5	32.7°
hot_thin	3.533	150.1	27.6°
storm	4.828	205.1	32.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.3°
rear sweep	42.6°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b0162c244cd9

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.343 Wh/km
vs baseline	7.9% better
scenario mean	3.910 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.866 Wh/km
frame mass	96.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 23 via crossover

hypothesisTwo mid-pack parents (6.299 and 6.493) each carried a wide plate and thin arm waist; the bet was that stacking a wider plate with a slightly thicker waist would shore up the weaker parent's storm weakness while keeping the stronger parent's sweep angles.

methodWidened the plate a bit further, thickened the arm waist slightly, tightened the deck gap a touch, and pulled back the carbon material fraction.

resultLanded at 6.343 — between the two parents but worse than the stronger one (6.299) and well off best-so-far (6.172). Storm remained the dominant cost at 4.87, suggesting the extra waist material added weight without buying enough stiffness. Worth testing next: widen the waist alone, without also inflating plate width, to see whether storm loss is arm-flex or plate-flex driven.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.343	142.0	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.046	171.9	39.1°
crosswind	3.904	165.9	33.9°
gusty_light	3.738	158.8	32.7°
hot_thin	3.563	151.4	27.6°
storm	4.866	206.7	31.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.26
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.1°
rear sweep	35.0°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.17
deck gap	24.6 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate ca3dd4c695e5

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.438 Wh/km
vs baseline	6.5% better
scenario mean	3.966 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.946 Wh/km
frame mass	100.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 23 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing a weaker frame (5f015dd86b15, 6.394) with the champion (245f65ba6586, 6.172) bet that borrowing the champion's rear sweep and arm length while keeping the weaker parent's wider arm and waist could still land competitively.

methodWidened the arm and thickened the waist, shortened the arm length slightly, and reduced rear sweep slightly.

resultScored 6.438 — worse than both parents and the worst result of this generation, missing best-so-far by a wide margin. The wider arm and thicker waist added drag and mass across every scenario (storm rose to 4.95) without any offsetting benefit, showing this parent's wide-arm trait is actively harmful when paired with a shortened arm length. Next: only test the wide-arm/thick-waist trait alongside the longer arm length it originally evolved with.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.371	143.2	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.144	176.0	40.0°
crosswind	3.952	167.9	34.3°
gusty_light	3.785	160.8	33.1°
hot_thin	3.597	152.8	27.8°
storm	4.946	210.1	34.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.31
arm width	×0.96
arm waist	×0.63
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.9°
rear sweep	36.2°
plate length	×0.91
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	33.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a2236bd22252

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	157.4 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 23 via immigrant

hypothesisA random immigrant probing a short, fat-arm design point the population hadn't explored — thick 8.3mm arms with a sharp rear sweep — to see if beefier arms could handle gusty/storm loads better.

methodShortened the arms but thickened and widened them a lot, swept the rear arm sharply, lengthened the plate, and opened the deck gap to 44.4mm.

resultInvalid: the arm tongue bolts miss the main plate. Cutting arm length while growing plate length and deck gap independently pushed the mounting tongue outside the plate's bolt pattern. Lesson: arm length, deck gap, and plate length need to be co-varied so the tongue stays inside the footprint. Next: constrain immigrant sampling so deck gap scales with (plate length minus arm length) instead of being drawn independently.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×1.33
arm waist	×1.06
arm thickness	8.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.3°
rear sweep	49.9°
plate length	×1.27
plate width	×1.04
deck gap	44.4 mm
battery wedge	2.0°
plate thickness	×0.90
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 8570e3a5490e

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	97.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 23 via crossover

hypothesisNeither parent (6.394, 6.299) had cracked the top tier; the bet was that a slightly slimmer plate footprint with longer arms could shed weight and improve efficiency across scenarios.

methodTrimmed plate length, evened out plate width, lengthened the arms further, and nudged the deck gap up slightly.

resultInvalid: the plate web came out too thin (1.39mm vs the 1.75mm stock minimum). Shrinking plate length without also raising the thickness multiplier pushed the load-bearing web below the structural minimum. Lesson: plate-length reductions need a compensating thickness bump or they violate the web-thickness constraint. Next: repeat this cross but hold plate thickness proportional to length so it doesn't collapse below minimum.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.34
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.6°
rear sweep	37.1°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.8 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 5e50f4967e91

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	112.1 g
material	petg
born	generation 23 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents were themselves invalid, unscored designs, so this cross was a long-shot attempt to see if combining their surviving traits — reduced wedge and reduced waist — could accidentally land in valid territory.

methodReduced the battery wedge tilt, thinned the arm waist slightly, shortened the plate a touch, and cut the material fraction substantially (on PETG).

resultInvalid: rotor too close to deck/battery, the same failure class one of its parents had. With neither parent valid to begin with, the cross had little chance of fixing the underlying deck-gap/wedge geometry and simply inherited the problem. Next: exclude invalid parents from breeding unless the offspring explicitly increases deck gap or reduces wedge tilt beyond both parents.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.92
arm thickness	5.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	50.3°
rear sweep	38.2°
plate length	×0.93
plate width	×1.10
deck gap	23.7 mm
battery wedge	6.6°
plate thickness	×1.60
material	petg

parents

candidate a24d007f8f5a

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	69.8 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 23 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing a mid-pack frame (265368e82bb5, 6.299) with a poor performer (749340067f79, 7.107) was a long-shot bet that switching to a different material while leveling the battery could recover some efficiency.

methodRaised the material fraction, switched the material to pa12_cf, leveled the battery wedge to 0 degrees, and reduced rear sweep slightly.

resultInvalid: plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4mm vs the 1.6mm minimum that material requires). pa12_cf needs thicker plates than cf_plate to hit the same structural floor, and the plate thickness multiplier wasn't adjusted for the swap. Lesson: material changes must carry their own minimum-thickness requirement through crossover. Next: when crossing in a new material, auto-raise the plate thickness multiplier to that material's minimum before evaluating.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.6°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.09
deck gap	24.9 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate cb7ff74a6cc7

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	151.0 g
material	petg
born	generation 23 via immigrant

hypothesisA random immigrant probing a heavy-duty, high-tilt design point — thick arms, wide sweep angles, and a steep battery wedge — to see if a more aggressive stance could pay off in the adverse-weather scenarios.

methodThickened the arms substantially, widened the arm waist, swept both arms sharply, tilted the battery steeply to 9.6 degrees, and thickened the plate.

resultInvalid: rotor too close to deck/battery. The steep battery wedge combined with the thicker plate likely closed off the rotor-to-deck clearance. Lesson: steep battery wedge and thick plates compound to shrink deck clearance, and immigrants sampling both extremes together are prone to this failure. Next: cap wedge angle and plate thickness so both can't be sampled near their extremes simultaneously in the immigrant generator.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.92
arm width	×0.91
arm waist	×1.21
arm thickness	8.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	44.0°
rear sweep	44.5°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.11
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	9.6°
plate thickness	×1.18
material	petg

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate c1a8bf20bf2b

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	92.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 23 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the incumbent (1704aea48de9, 6.274) with a close mid-pack peer (54a73703249e, 6.257) bet that a longer arm plus a slight battery tilt could combine both parents' strengths.

methodNarrowed the plate width slightly, lengthened the arm further, added a small battery wedge, and reduced rear sweep slightly.

resultInvalid: plate web too thin (1.37mm vs the 1.90mm stock minimum). Narrowing the plate while keeping the thickness multiplier fixed crossed the structural minimum again, echoing the same failure mode as 8570e3a5490e. Lesson: this lineage's plate-width/thickness tradeoff is now a recurring failure mode for children with longer arms. Next: add a pre-check that rejects plate-width reductions below a threshold unless plate thickness is raised to compensate.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.5°
rear sweep	38.6°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×0.97
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	0.7°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 1704aea48de9new best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.274 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.9% better
scenario mean	3.867 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.815 Wh/km
frame mass	91.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 11 via mutation

hypothesisSame champion parent again, but instead of touching front sweep (already tuned), the bet was that rear-arm sweep was the next untapped lever, paired with the same plate-thinning trick that had been working.

methodIncreased rear sweep by about 3 degrees, thinned the plate stock (0.75x to 0.70x), left the material blend essentially at the parent's value, and stretched arm length marginally.

resultFitness hit 6.274, the best result of the generation and a NEW WINNER, beating not just its parent (6.291) but also sibling ba61fc4b63fb's 6.286. Storm score matched ba61fc4b63fb almost exactly, but small gains stacked across calm, cold, crosswind, gusty, and hot scenarios pushed it ahead, suggesting the rear-sweep tweak has broader benefit than the front-sweep one. Worth testing next: combine this rear-sweep change with ba61fc4b63fb's arm-waist change to see if the two mass-saving moves stack further.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.301	140.2	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.003	170.1	38.9°
crosswind	3.862	164.1	33.7°
gusty_light	3.699	157.1	32.6°
hot_thin	3.521	149.6	27.5°
storm	4.815	204.6	31.3°

gene	value
arm length	×1.31
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	39.3°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 265368e82bb5

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.299 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.5% better
scenario mean	3.883 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.832 Wh/km
frame mass	93.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 22 via pivot

hypothesisParent was the standing best-so-far, so this pivot tests whether widening the main plate and adding a small battery wedge could improve robustness in crosswind/storm without disturbing the proven arm geometry.

methodWidened and slightly lengthened the plate, added a small battery wedge tilt, and trimmed rear sweep a touch.

resultValid at 6.299, close to but worse than its parent/best-so-far of 6.257 — not a new winner. The extra plate width and wedge likely added drag/mass without a compensating aero benefit, and storm remained the weak scenario at 4.83. Worth testing: try the battery wedge alone without the plate width increase to isolate its effect.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.318	141.0	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.017	170.7	38.9°
crosswind	3.878	164.8	33.8°
gusty_light	3.713	157.7	32.6°
hot_thin	3.538	150.3	27.5°
storm	4.832	205.3	31.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.1°
rear sweep	35.0°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.10
deck gap	25.2 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 1e7b04b153a0

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.305 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.4% better
scenario mean	3.885 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.838 Wh/km
frame mass	93.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 22 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the reigning best design with a decent secondary parent tests whether slightly longer arms and a thicker plate could extract more efficiency from the champion lineage.

methodLengthened the arms slightly, widened the plate marginally, and thickened the plate a bit versus the champion baseline.

resultValid at 6.305, essentially matching the champion lineage but not beating best-so-far 6.257 — not a new winner. The added plate thickness and arm length likely cost more mass than they saved elsewhere. Worth testing: try the arm-length increase alone without the plate-thickness bump.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.316	140.9	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.028	171.1	39.0°
crosswind	3.878	164.7	33.8°
gusty_light	3.715	157.8	32.7°
hot_thin	3.537	150.2	27.6°
storm	4.838	205.6	31.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.31
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.5°
rear sweep	36.2°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	26.1 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.73
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 5f015dd86b15

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.394 Wh/km
vs baseline	7.2% better
scenario mean	3.938 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.912 Wh/km
frame mass	98.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 22 via crossover

hypothesisTwo mid-pack parents were crossed hoping their arm-width and sweep traits would recombine into something better than either.

methodTook wider arms and slightly more rear sweep than either parent's baseline.

resultValid at 6.394, worse than both parents (6.341 and 6.274) and off best-so-far. The wider arms likely added drag/mass that outweighed any sweep benefit. Worth testing: rerun the crossover but keep arm width closer to the leaner parent's value instead of widening.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.346	142.2	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.115	174.8	39.7°
crosswind	3.925	166.8	34.2°
gusty_light	3.760	159.7	33.1°
hot_thin	3.571	151.7	27.8°
storm	4.912	208.7	34.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.6°
rear sweep	37.1°
plate length	×0.92
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	32.6 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 300292d08250

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.493 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.7% better
scenario mean	4.002 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.982 Wh/km
frame mass	101.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 22 via pivot

hypothesisParent carried a heavy wedge and thick plate while underperforming, so this pivot bets that thinning the plate and switching to pure cf_plate would cut mass while keeping most of the aggressive battery tilt.

methodTrimmed the battery wedge slightly, thinned the plate, switched material fully to cf_plate, and widened the plate marginally.

resultValid with a modest improvement to 6.493 from the parent's 6.504, but still well off best-so-far 6.257 — storm remained the weak point at 4.98. The oversized wedge and wide deck gap inherited from this lineage look like the real bottleneck, not material or thickness. Worth testing: cut the battery wedge toward 0° next to isolate its cost.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.409	144.8	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.179	177.5	39.5°
crosswind	3.993	169.7	34.3°
gusty_light	3.819	162.2	33.0°
hot_thin	3.630	154.2	27.8°
storm	4.982	211.7	33.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	35.9°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	42.7 mm
battery wedge	13.9°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 8eef9a028a5b✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.548 Wh/km
vs baseline	4.9% better
scenario mean	4.038 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.021 Wh/km
frame mass	103.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 22 via designer

hypothesisThis hand-designed candidate bets that blending the champion's lean, slender arm profile with a much steeper front sweep and an enlarged plate could push aerodynamics further.

methodCombined champion-like slender arms (thin waist, 4mm thickness, cf_plate) with an enlarged plate (15% bigger both dimensions), a steep 46° front sweep, and a 15° battery wedge.

resultValid at 6.548, but well off best-so-far 6.257. The steep front sweep and enlarged plate/wedge combination likely added drag and mass that the slender arms couldn't offset. Worth testing: keep the slender arm genes but drop front sweep back toward 33-36° and remove the wedge to see what's actually hurting performance.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.449	146.5	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.218	179.2	39.8°
crosswind	4.024	171.0	34.7°
gusty_light	3.849	163.5	33.2°
hot_thin	3.664	155.7	27.9°
storm	5.021	213.3	35.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.28
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	46.0°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×1.15
plate width	×1.15
deck gap	35.0 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 6e14487e2184✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.737 Wh/km
vs baseline	2.2% better
scenario mean	4.150 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.172 Wh/km
frame mass	116.9 g
material	asa
born	generation 22 via designer

hypothesisThis hand-designed candidate tests an alternative material (asa) with a much thicker, heavier arm and plate build, betting the durability gains would pay off in harsh scenarios like storm despite the mass penalty.

methodSet thick 7.5mm arms with stock-like waist ratio, near-stock plate dimensions but thickened, no battery wedge or sweep extremes, and switched material to asa.

resultValid at 6.737 — the worst of the three designer entries this generation, and off best-so-far 6.257, with storm reaching 5.17. The heavier asa build's mass cost outweighed any structural benefit versus lighter cf_plate designs. Worth testing: keep this same geometry but swap material back to cf_plate and thin the plate to see if the shape itself is competitive.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.509	149.1	25.8°
cold_headwind	4.366	185.5	40.3°
crosswind	4.157	176.6	35.1°
gusty_light	3.956	168.0	33.6°
hot_thin	3.741	158.9	28.1°
storm	5.172	219.7	37.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.05
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×1.00
arm thickness	7.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.0°
rear sweep	38.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.10
material	asa

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 749340067f79

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	7.107 Wh/km
vs baseline	3.2% worse
scenario mean	4.377 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.460 Wh/km
frame mass	144.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 22 via pivot

hypothesisParent was already weak and far off the leaders, so this pivot bets that thicker arms would add stiffness and cut vibration losses in gusty/storm conditions.

methodThickened the arms substantially, trimmed front sweep slightly, and made minor plate length and deck gap adjustments.

resultValid but worse at 7.107 versus parent's 6.704 and far off best-so-far 6.257 — every scenario got worse, with storm reaching 5.46. This lineage's heavy sweep angles and 12.7° wedge were already dragging it down, and adding arm mass only compounded the problem. Worth testing: strip the wedge and sweep back toward baseline before retrying an arm-thickness increase.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.703	157.3	25.9°
cold_headwind	4.621	196.3	40.5°
crosswind	4.370	185.6	35.3°
gusty_light	4.164	176.9	33.8°
hot_thin	3.944	167.6	28.3°
storm	5.460	231.9	37.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.22
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.62
arm thickness	6.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	43.3°
rear sweep	49.9°
plate length	×1.28
plate width	×1.25
deck gap	30.2 mm
battery wedge	12.7°
plate thickness	×0.73
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate afc163a5abbd

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	105.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 22 via pivot

hypothesisParent was a middling performer, so this pivot bets on a leaner, narrower main plate combined with much more aggressive rear sweep and a wider deck gap to shave mass and improve prop clearance.

methodNarrowed the plate width, swept the rear arms out substantially, opened up the deck gap, and increased the arm waist taper.

resultInvalid: the narrowed plate's web came out too thin to meet the minimum structural wall thickness. This shows plate width can't be cut this far without also increasing plate thickness to compensate. Worth testing: repeat the sweep/deck-gap change but hold plate width closer to parent and only thin walls if thickness gene rises.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.32
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.84
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.3°
rear sweep	48.7°
plate length	×0.93
plate width	×0.85
deck gap	43.8 mm
battery wedge	0.7°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate c6ca93d8c9f0

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	76.9 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 22 via pivot

hypothesisParent underperformed, so this pivot bets that widening the arms for stiffness and shifting the material blend toward a pa12_cf composite would improve strength-to-weight.

methodWidened the arms, shifted the material mix toward pa12_cf, and lengthened the plate slightly while leaving plate width nearly unchanged.

resultInvalid: pa12_cf carries a higher minimum plate thickness (1.6mm) than this genome provided (1.4mm). Lesson: material composition changes shift the structural floor, so any move toward pa12_cf needs a paired increase in plate thickness. Worth testing: retry this same arm-width/material shift but bump plate thickness above the pa12_cf floor.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.96
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.8°
rear sweep	37.5°
plate length	×1.18
plate width	×0.97
deck gap	33.1 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate f1ed396d782b

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	98.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 22 via pivot

hypothesisSame top parent as candidate 265368e82bb5; this pivot instead bets that pushing both front and rear sweep outward together would improve prop clearance and airflow while a wider plate adds stiffness.

methodIncreased both front and rear sweep angles substantially, widened the plate, and added a slight battery wedge.

resultInvalid: the large simultaneous sweep change moved the arm mounting tongues off the plate's bolt pattern. Lesson: big sweep-angle jumps must be paired with matching plate footprint growth or bolt holes miss. Worth testing: repeat the sweep increase but auto-scale plate length/width proportionally to keep bolt alignment intact.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.7°
rear sweep	49.2°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.08
deck gap	26.1 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 3bf89209f7be

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	76.0 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 22 via pivot

hypothesisParent was mediocre, so this pivot bets that switching toward pet_cf material and shrinking the deck stack would cut mass without sacrificing strength.

methodShifted the material blend toward pet_cf, shrank the deck gap sharply, narrowed the plate, and trimmed front sweep slightly.

resultInvalid: the deck gap fell below the minimum clearance needed for the FC/ESC stack. Lesson: deck gap has a hard floor near the mid-20s mm that can't be pushed past regardless of material choice. Worth testing: retry the pet_cf material swap while holding deck gap close to the parent's ~25mm.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.31
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	37.6°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×0.92
deck gap	20.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	pet_cf

parents

candidate 89450dd39ffd

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	79.4 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 22 via crossover

hypothesisTwo mediocre parents were crossed, betting a shift toward pa12_cf material and a beefier arm waist would offset the wedge-heavy lineage's weaknesses.

methodShifted material toward pa12_cf, thickened the arm waist ratio, and trimmed the wedge and front sweep slightly.

resultInvalid: same pa12_cf minimum plate-thickness violation seen in candidate c6ca93d8c9f0 (1.5mm vs 1.6mm floor). Lesson: this material's thickness floor keeps tripping up both pivots and crossovers that don't raise plate thickness in tandem. Worth testing: treat pa12_cf's thickness floor as a hard constraint that auto-bumps plate thickness whenever material shifts toward it.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.69
arm thickness	4.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.0°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	42.8 mm
battery wedge	14.1°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 7a302a4e9adc

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	114.7 g
material	petg
born	generation 22 via immigrant

hypothesisA random immigrant genome, unrelated to any parent, was injected purely for diversity — testing a very different design corner (petg material, thick plate, steep front sweep, short arms) to probe whether the population is stuck in a local optimum.

methodGenerated a fresh random design with short thick arms, a steep 49° front sweep, a thick petg plate, and a relatively tight deck gap.

resultInvalid: the short arm length combined with the tight-ish deck gap put the rotor disc too close to the deck/battery stack. Lesson: immigrant sampling needs a joint constraint linking arm length and deck gap to avoid rotor strikes. Worth testing: bias immigrant generation to keep arm-length/deck-gap combinations within the safe envelope already implied by valid population members.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.94
arm width	×0.91
arm waist	×1.01
arm thickness	5.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	49.4°
rear sweep	38.5°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×1.12
deck gap	23.9 mm
battery wedge	8.7°
plate thickness	×1.51
material	petg

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 6db77ae0e3e7

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.319 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.2% better
scenario mean	3.893 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.852 Wh/km
frame mass	95.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 21 via crossover

hypothesisCrossover bet on taking the champion's (6.257) tight rear sweep and deck gap and merging them with the other parent's (6.289) material blend, hoping the combination could edge past the champion itself.

methodPulled rear sweep in from 39.3° to 36.5°, blended in a touch of PA12 composite material, narrowed the plate very slightly, and tightened the deck gap from 26mm to just under 25mm.

resultAt 6.319 this landed close to the champion but did not beat it (6.257) — not a new winner. The tighter deck gap and sweep look promising, but the material blend addition likely cost a little efficiency. Worth testing: the same rear sweep and deck gap tightening on the pure carbon-plate champion, dropping the material blend change.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.317	140.9	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.044	171.8	39.1°
crosswind	3.885	165.1	33.7°
gusty_light	3.722	158.1	32.7°
hot_thin	3.540	150.4	27.6°
storm	4.852	206.1	31.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.31
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.2°
rear sweep	36.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	24.9 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a3e915aff1c6

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.341 Wh/km
vs baseline	7.9% better
scenario mean	3.907 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.868 Wh/km
frame mass	94.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 21 via crossover

hypothesisCrossover bet on merging the leaner plate proportions from one parent (6.323) with the wider arms of the other (6.589), aiming for a more balanced, compact frame that beats both.

methodShortened the plate (0.97x to 0.92x), widened it slightly, widened the arms a touch (0.76x to 0.78x), and pulled rear sweep in slightly from 36.7° to 35.6°.

resultLanded at 6.341, close to but not beating the better parent's 6.323, and still short of the best-so-far 6.257. A near-miss that suggests this blend direction is viable; worth testing a smaller plate-length trim on the same parent instead of the full crossover swap.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.328	141.4	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.067	172.8	39.4°
crosswind	3.896	165.5	34.0°
gusty_light	3.733	158.6	32.9°
hot_thin	3.549	150.8	27.7°
storm	4.868	206.8	33.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.6°
rear sweep	35.6°
plate length	×0.92
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	32.6 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 321458e4fe8e

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.384 Wh/km
vs baseline	7.3% better
scenario mean	3.933 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.900 Wh/km
frame mass	100.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 21 via pivot

hypothesisSame champion parent; bet that giving the plate more length and the deck stack more room, plus a touch more arm stiffness, would pay off in the storm and gust scenarios where the champion already spends most of its cost.

methodStretched plate length (0.97x to 1.14x), opened the deck gap from about 26mm to 33mm, thickened the arms slightly (4.0mm to 4.3mm), and swept the rear arms back about a degree more.

resultCame in at 6.384, clearly worse than the champion's 6.257 and worse than its own parent — every scenario cost more, with storm the worst at 4.9 Wh/km. The extra length and deck room added mass without buying enough benefit. Worth testing: keep the arm thickness bump alone and leave plate length and deck gap at the champion's values.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.349	142.3	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.082	173.4	39.2°
crosswind	3.934	167.1	34.1°
gusty_light	3.760	159.8	32.8°
hot_thin	3.574	151.8	27.6°
storm	4.900	208.2	32.3°

gene	value
arm length	×1.26
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	37.3°
plate length	×1.14
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	33.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 9e44ec74f3f7

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.422 Wh/km
vs baseline	6.8% better
scenario mean	3.956 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.932 Wh/km
frame mass	99.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 21 via pivot

hypothesisParent (6.289) runs a tight deck stack; bet that opening it up plus tilting the battery would improve cooling and balance enough to offset the added bulk, especially in hot and stormy conditions.

methodOpened the deck gap from 26mm to nearly 36mm, thickened the arm waist (0.55x to 0.74x), tilted the battery by 2°, and shortened the plate slightly.

resultLanded at 6.422, worse than the parent's 6.289 and well off the champion's 6.257, with every scenario costing more (storm 4.93). The deck gap and waist increases added more drag and mass than the battery tilt saved. Worth testing next: the battery tilt alone on the parent's frame, without opening the deck gap.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.363	142.9	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.130	175.4	39.7°
crosswind	3.945	167.6	34.2°
gusty_light	3.778	160.5	33.1°
hot_thin	3.588	152.4	27.8°
storm	4.932	209.5	34.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.32
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.74
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.1°
rear sweep	38.9°
plate length	×0.93
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	35.8 mm
battery wedge	2.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 5e6a89c82c1d✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.504 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.6% better
scenario mean	4.009 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.990 Wh/km
frame mass	102.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 21 via designer

hypothesisA from-scratch designer proposal, independent of the evolved lineages, betting that a large battery tilt paired with a generous deck stack clearance could improve weight distribution and cooling margin enough to compete with the mutation and crossover pool.

methodBuilt fresh with moderately slim arms (0.80x width, 0.60x waist, 4.5mm thick, 1.15x length), a 43mm deck gap, and a 15° battery wedge, alongside near-stock plate proportions.

resultScored 6.504 — a respectable first attempt but well off the best-so-far 6.257 and behind the top of the mutation lineage. The large battery wedge and roomy deck gap likely added more mass and drag than they bought in balance. Worth testing: the same arm proportions but with deck gap and battery wedge pulled down toward the values the evolved lineage has converged on.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.416	145.1	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.183	177.7	39.3°
crosswind	3.999	169.9	34.3°
gusty_light	3.826	162.6	33.0°
hot_thin	3.638	154.6	27.8°
storm	4.990	212.0	33.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	43.0 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 7bba02524c77

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.621 Wh/km
vs baseline	3.8% better
scenario mean	4.081 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.081 Wh/km
frame mass	114.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 21 via mutation

hypothesisParent (6.589) was already reasonably competitive; bet that a stiffer, wider plate combined with a slightly tighter deck stack would trade a little mass for stiffness and shave some drag.

methodWidened the plate (1.00x to 1.08x) and tightened the deck gap slightly (27.8mm to 26.7mm).

resultCame in at 6.621, marginally worse than the parent's 6.589 across every scenario. The added plate width cost more in mass than the tighter deck gap saved. Worth testing: the deck gap tightening alone, without the plate width increase.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.481	147.9	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.259	180.9	40.0°
crosswind	4.067	172.8	34.5°
gusty_light	3.892	165.3	33.2°
hot_thin	3.706	157.4	27.9°
storm	5.081	215.9	35.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	44.7°
rear sweep	37.9°
plate length	×1.11
plate width	×1.08
deck gap	26.7 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 0a47694a74b8

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.704 Wh/km
vs baseline	2.6% better
scenario mean	4.131 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.147 Wh/km
frame mass	115.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 21 via crossover

hypothesisCrossover bet on combining the fitter parent's (6.339) more compact geometry with the weaker parent's (6.678) sweep and plate proportions, hoping the blend would land between the two or better.

methodPulled front sweep back from 48.9° to 45.3°, opened the deck gap slightly, and widened the plate a touch, inheriting a large roughly 13° battery wedge from the weaker parent.

resultAt 6.704 this came out worse than both parents, not just the fitter one — a crossover miss. The steep front sweep and large battery wedge inherited from the weak parent likely dominated the outcome. Worth testing: cross the fitter parent with something that doesn't carry over that large battery wedge.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.512	149.2	25.8°
cold_headwind	4.333	184.1	40.3°
crosswind	4.119	175.0	35.1°
gusty_light	3.936	167.2	33.5°
hot_thin	3.738	158.8	28.0°
storm	5.147	218.7	36.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.21
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.62
arm thickness	4.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	45.3°
rear sweep	49.1°
plate length	×1.30
plate width	×1.25
deck gap	29.4 mm
battery wedge	12.7°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 8b5de20a6d4e✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	8.053 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.9% worse
scenario mean	4.953 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.200 Wh/km
frame mass	219.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 21 via designer

hypothesisA second from-scratch designer bet, this time favoring maximum structural margin — thick arms, thick plates, larger overall scale — to see if a 'built like a tank' frame could still be competitive on efficiency.

methodBuilt fresh with wide, thick arms (1.35x width, 1.25x waist, 7.5mm thick), a bigger plate (1.10x length and width, 1.10x thickness), a 38mm deck gap, and steep 38-44° sweep angles.

resultScored 8.053, far worse than the best-so-far 6.257 and roughly matching the other poor heavy-arm lineage in the pool. This confirms bulking up structure across the board carries a heavy weight and drag tax that swamps any durability benefit; the 'tank' direction should be dropped in favor of the leaner carbon-plate frames already converging near 6.2-6.3.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	4.190	178.0	25.9°
cold_headwind	5.225	222.0	41.0°
crosswind	4.925	209.2	35.4°
gusty_light	4.705	199.9	34.0°
hot_thin	4.473	190.0	28.3°
storm	6.200	263.4	39.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.10
arm width	×1.35
arm waist	×1.25
arm thickness	7.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	38.0°
rear sweep	44.0°
plate length	×1.10
plate width	×1.10
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.10
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate fe3e0aede10d

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	8.090 Wh/km
vs baseline	17.5% worse
scenario mean	4.977 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.225 Wh/km
frame mass	227.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 21 via mutation

hypothesisParent (8.018) is a heavy, thick-armed design far off the pace; the mutation made a small bet that trimming plate length while nudging arm thickness up slightly could claw back some efficiency.

methodShortened the plate slightly (1.00x to 0.94x), widened it a touch, and nudged arm thickness up marginally (7.5mm to 7.9mm) while easing the arm waist down slightly.

resultFitness barely moved, 8.09 vs the parent's 8.018 — essentially flat, and still far above the best-so-far 6.257. This suggests the heavy-arm lineage is structurally capped and small mutations won't close the gap; worth abandoning micro-tweaks here in favor of a larger redesign or retiring this lineage.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	4.220	179.3	25.8°
cold_headwind	5.221	221.8	40.6°
crosswind	4.957	210.6	35.1°
gusty_light	4.732	201.0	33.7°
hot_thin	4.506	191.4	28.1°
storm	6.225	264.5	38.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×1.30
arm waist	×1.14
arm thickness	7.9 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.0°
rear sweep	38.0°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.07
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.33
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b117b3da4364

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	92.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 21 via pivot

hypothesisParent (6.313) already had a fairly trim deck stack; this pivot bet that there was still headroom to shave — tightening the clearance and pulling the front arms in for a lighter, lower-drag build.

methodShrunk the deck stack clearance from about 26mm down to 20.5mm, pulled the front arm sweep from 33° to 30°, widened the main plate slightly, and trimmed arm length a touch.

resultInvalid — the reduced deck gap left no room for the FC/ESC stack, so it never got scored. This confirms deck gap has a hard floor around the mid-20s mm for this stack; next worth testing is shrinking sweep and plate width alone while leaving deck gap untouched.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.25
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	37.4°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.04
deck gap	20.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate e6aff9563f8c

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	107.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 21 via pivot

hypothesisBet that the reigning champion's thin plate might be a fragility risk under storm loads, so tried reinforcing it structurally while narrowing the plate to offset the added weight, and shifting toward a purer carbon layup.

methodNearly doubled plate thickness (about 0.70x to 1.48x), narrowed plate width (1.00x to 0.88x), opened the deck gap from about 26mm to 30mm, and moved the material blend fully to plain carbon plate.

resultInvalid — narrowing the plate that much made the arm root tongues collide with each other on the main plate. Lesson: plate width and arm-tongue spacing are coupled, so a thickness increase needs width to stay above a minimum for tongue clearance. Worth trying the thicker plate again with only a slight width trim, if any.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.23
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.7°
rear sweep	35.6°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×0.88
deck gap	30.4 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×1.48
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 24af3796f70c

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	100.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 21 via pivot

hypothesisParent (6.339) has a slender arm waist that may be a weak point under load; this pivot bet on beefing it up and sweeping the rear arms further back for extra stability margin.

methodThickened the arm waist substantially (0.55x to 0.75x) and swept the rear arms back from 39.6° to 43.8°, with a small front sweep nudge.

resultInvalid — the fatter waist combined with the new sweep angle shifted the arm tongue bolt holes off the main plate, so it couldn't be assembled. This shows waist width and sweep angle are geometrically linked through the bolt pattern; worth testing the waist increase alone, without also changing rear sweep.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.75
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.9°
rear sweep	43.8°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	29.9 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 827158d42c32

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.47 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	98.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 21 via pivot

hypothesisThe parent was itself already invalid, likely from its aggressive rear sweep; this pivot bet on shrinking the plate footprint and pulling the rear sweep in to fix whatever margin problem killed it.

methodNarrowed the plate width and length (both down to roughly 0.86-0.91x), pulled rear sweep back from 52.8° to 48.6°, and increased the battery wedge slightly to 3.2°.

resultStill invalid — shrinking the plate that far left the main plate web at only 1.47mm, below the 1.90mm structural minimum. Lesson: footprint reductions need a matching thickness increase or they eat into the structural web. Worth testing: the same footprint shrink paired with a plate thickness bump to stay above the web floor.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	30.3°
rear sweep	48.6°
plate length	×0.91
plate width	×0.86
deck gap	27.3 mm
battery wedge	3.2°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 2c3798403caa

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	70.0 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 21 via pivot

hypothesisBet that the champion's frame was over-built in carbon fiber and could shed mass or cost by blending in some PA12, using the deck gap and plate length as compensating slack.

methodOpened the deck gap slightly (26.1mm to 28.9mm), shifted the material blend about a quarter of the way from pure carbon plate toward the PA12 composite, and nudged plate length and front sweep slightly.

resultInvalid — the plate thickness that worked for pure carbon fiber falls below the minimum required once PA12 is blended in (1.4mm vs 1.6mm needed). This teaches that material blend changes must be paired with a thickness increase, not attempted at the champion's original thickness. Worth testing: the same blend with plate thickness raised to clear the PA12 floor.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.28
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.8°
rear sweep	35.9°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	28.9 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 3280daa84a2f

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.289 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.7% better
scenario mean	3.875 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.827 Wh/km
frame mass	92.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 20 via crossover

hypothesisThis crossover paired the near-best 6.274 genome with the weaker 6.588 one, betting that only picking up a tiny width/sweep nudge from the weaker parent would keep performance close to the stronger one.

methodVery slightly widened the plate and increased front sweep a touch; arm thickness was left unchanged between parents.

resultFitness came in at 6.289, very close to the 6.274 parent and just short of the 6.257 best-so-far — not a new winner, but it confirms this region of the genome is a strong, stable local optimum. The tiny width/sweep tweaks were nearly neutral. Worth testing: nudge front sweep back down toward the champion's own value to see if it closes the remaining gap.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.306	140.4	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.018	170.7	38.9°
crosswind	3.867	164.3	33.7°
gusty_light	3.706	157.4	32.6°
hot_thin	3.527	149.8	27.5°
storm	4.827	205.1	31.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.2°
rear sweep	39.3°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 99c5d37c02df

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.313 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.3% better
scenario mean	3.890 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.846 Wh/km
frame mass	93.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 20 via pivot

hypothesisThis pivot came directly off the reigning champion (54a73703249e, 6.257), betting that small refinements — slightly wider arms and a purer carbon-fiber blend — could squeeze out an incremental improvement.

methodWidened the arms a little, nudged rear sweep up marginally, shifted the material blend closer to pure carbon fiber, and thickened the arm waist slightly.

resultFitness landed at 6.313, slightly worse than the 6.257 champion — did not dethrone it. The extra arm width and waist mass likely outweighed any benefit from the purer material, nudging the storm scenario up to 4.85. Worth testing: apply the material shift alone, without widening the arms, to isolate whether purer carbon fiber helps on its own.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.317	140.9	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.037	171.5	39.3°
crosswind	3.880	164.8	33.9°
gusty_light	3.719	158.0	32.8°
hot_thin	3.539	150.3	27.6°
storm	4.846	205.9	32.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.28
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	37.4°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.4 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 32354be55061

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.323 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.2% better
scenario mean	3.896 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.854 Wh/km
frame mass	94.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 20 via crossover

hypothesisThis crossover blended the same 6.298 performer with the 6.274 near-best genome, betting that a wider deck gap and reduced rear sweep together would improve rotor clearance and efficiency.

methodWidened the deck gap by several millimeters, reduced rear sweep, lengthened the arms slightly, and nudged front sweep up marginally.

resultFitness landed at 6.323, worse than both parents and off the 6.257 best-so-far — the blend underperformed either input alone. The wider deck gap likely added structural mass without a proportional efficiency return. Worth testing: apply the deck-gap widening alone against the 6.274 parent to confirm it's the culprit before combining it with other changes.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.318	141.0	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.051	172.1	39.2°
crosswind	3.888	165.2	34.0°
gusty_light	3.723	158.2	32.8°
hot_thin	3.540	150.4	27.7°
storm	4.854	206.2	32.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.5°
rear sweep	36.7°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.6 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 8d3baceec6ce

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.339 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.0% better
scenario mean	3.905 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.866 Wh/km
frame mass	94.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 20 via crossover

hypothesisThis crossover combined two near-best performers (6.298 and the 6.257 champion), betting that blending their plate-length and arm-length traits could produce something better than either parent.

methodGrew the plate length toward full stock scale, lengthened the arms slightly, and nudged rear sweep up marginally.

resultFitness came in at 6.339, worse than both parents and off the 6.257 best-so-far — the cross did not combine favorably. The slightly longer arms and plate appear to have added drag or mass without a matching benefit, reflected in a higher storm figure (4.87). Worth testing: repeat the cross but hold arm length fixed at the better parent's value, varying only plate length.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.325	141.3	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.065	172.7	39.4°
crosswind	3.897	165.6	34.0°
gusty_light	3.732	158.5	32.9°
hot_thin	3.547	150.7	27.7°
storm	4.866	206.7	33.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	39.6°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	29.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate cc53cd9d248e✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.514 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.4% better
scenario mean	4.014 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.001 Wh/km
frame mass	102.6 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 20 via designer

hypothesisA designer-proposed clean-slate design testing the pa12_cf material family — instead of the cf_plate dominating the population — with arm geometry close to the population's converged sweep angles, to see if a different material could open a new efficiency path.

methodBuilt from scratch using pa12_cf material with moderate arm thickness and waist, sweep angles near the population's converged values (33°/37°), standard deck gap, and stock-scale plate thickness.

resultFitness came in at 6.514 — better than the other two designer entries this generation but still well off the 6.257 best-so-far. The material swap alone didn't overcome the extra mass pa12_cf's thicker-wall requirement imposes. Worth testing: graft the population's converged sweep and plate-length values onto a pa12_cf frame to give the material a fairer, more competitive genetic context.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.402	144.5	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.204	178.6	39.9°
crosswind	4.016	170.6	34.6°
gusty_light	3.829	162.7	33.2°
hot_thin	3.628	154.1	27.9°
storm	5.001	212.5	35.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.20
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.70
arm thickness	6.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	pa12_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 9fc7fb69eb8b

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.589 Wh/km
vs baseline	4.3% better
scenario mean	4.061 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.057 Wh/km
frame mass	112.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 20 via pivot

hypothesisFrom the same 6.431 parent, this sibling pivot bet on the opposite lever — more front sweep instead of rear — paired with a longer plate, to see if front-loaded sweep would handle crosswind and gust scenarios better.

methodIncreased front sweep substantially, lengthened the main plate, lengthened the arms slightly, and trimmed rear sweep a little.

resultFitness came in at 6.589, worse than the 6.431 parent and far off the 6.257 best-so-far — not a winner. The extra front sweep and longer plate likely added drag and mass that outweighed any stability gain, with storm and cold-headwind scenarios both elevated. Worth testing: isolate the front-sweep increase without the plate lengthening to see which change is actually costing efficiency.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.461	147.0	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.237	180.0	39.8°
crosswind	4.050	172.1	34.4°
gusty_light	3.874	164.6	33.1°
hot_thin	3.686	156.6	27.8°
storm	5.057	214.8	34.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	44.7°
rear sweep	37.9°
plate length	×1.11
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	27.8 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate f45e862cd6b3✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.619 Wh/km
vs baseline	3.9% better
scenario mean	4.081 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.077 Wh/km
frame mass	110.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 20 via designer

hypothesisA designer-proposed clean-slate design testing whether repositioning the battery mass via a steep wedge tilt, combined with slim long arms and a wide plate, could improve weight distribution independent of the arm-geometry lineage dominating the population.

methodBuilt from scratch with long, slim arms, a pronounced 46° rear sweep, a 20%-wider plate, and a steep 15° battery wedge tilt not seen elsewhere in this generation.

resultFitness came in at 6.619, well off the 6.257 best-so-far and middling among the designer entries this generation. With no direct lineage to compare against, the result sits closer to the weaker cluster of frames, suggesting the steep battery tilt didn't pay off. Worth testing: graft the battery wedge tilt alone onto the current champion's other genes to isolate its effect cleanly.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.482	147.9	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.261	181.0	39.7°
crosswind	4.070	172.9	34.5°
gusty_light	3.891	165.3	33.2°
hot_thin	3.703	157.3	27.9°
storm	5.077	215.7	34.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	46.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.20
deck gap	28.0 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.78
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 04ff0826e748

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.678 Wh/km
vs baseline	3.0% better
scenario mean	4.115 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.125 Wh/km
frame mass	113.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 20 via pivot

hypothesisThe parent was already trailing the leading cluster at 6.588, so this pivot bet that pushing sweep angles further and thickening the arm waist would trade a little mass for better aerodynamic and structural balance.

methodIncreased front sweep further, thickened the arm waist, lengthened the arms slightly, and trimmed rear sweep marginally.

resultFitness landed at 6.678, worse than the 6.588 parent and well off the 6.257 best-so-far — not a new winner. The added waist mass and extra sweep likely cost more in drag and weight than they returned in stiffness, especially visible in the storm scenario (5.13). Worth testing: vary front sweep and arm waist independently rather than together, to see which one is actually hurting.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.504	148.8	25.8°
cold_headwind	4.308	183.0	40.2°
crosswind	4.104	174.4	34.9°
gusty_light	3.922	166.6	33.4°
hot_thin	3.728	158.4	28.0°
storm	5.125	217.7	36.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.21
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.63
arm thickness	4.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	48.9°
rear sweep	48.8°
plate length	×1.30
plate width	×1.24
deck gap	25.9 mm
battery wedge	12.6°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 216648201249✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	8.018 Wh/km
vs baseline	16.4% worse
scenario mean	4.932 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.171 Wh/km
frame mass	221.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 20 via designer

hypothesisA designer-proposed clean-slate design testing an intentionally over-built, heavy-duty frame — thick arms, thick waist, wide deck gap — betting that extra structural margin might unlock better storm/high-wind performance even at a weight cost.

methodBuilt from scratch with much thicker and wider arms (7.5mm thick, 30% wider, 20% thicker waist), a 40mm deck gap, and plates 35% thicker than stock — no lineage, everything pushed toward heavy and stiff.

resultFitness came in at 8.018, far worse than the 6.257 best-so-far and the worst result in this generation — the mass penalty of over-building dominated every scenario, including storm (6.17). This confirms the population is well past the point where added structural margin helps; efficiency gains now come from trimming mass, not adding it. Worth testing: if stiffness is still worth exploring, target one dimension at a time (e.g. waist only) rather than compounding thickness across arm, waist, and plate simultaneously.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	4.179	177.6	25.9°
cold_headwind	5.185	220.3	40.8°
crosswind	4.910	208.6	35.2°
gusty_light	4.688	199.2	33.8°
hot_thin	4.462	189.5	28.2°
storm	6.171	262.2	38.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×1.30
arm waist	×1.20
arm thickness	7.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.0°
rear sweep	38.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.35
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate dc624f621edb

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	86.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 20 via pivot

hypothesisThe parent sat right at the current best-so-far (6.257), so this pivot bet that shrinking the arms and pushing the material blend fully to carbon fiber could shave more weight without giving up stiffness.

methodShortened the arms substantially (from 27% over stock to just 7% over), shifted the material blend entirely to pure carbon fiber, trimmed rear sweep slightly, and thickened the plates a touch.

resultInvalid: shortening the arms brought the rotor disc too close to the deck/battery stack, a hard clearance violation. The lesson is that arm length can't be cut in isolation once deck gap and battery placement are tuned to a longer arm. Worth testing: repeat the same material/arm-length bet but widen the deck gap or drop the battery wedge to preserve rotor clearance.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.07
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.4°
rear sweep	34.8°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.73
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 37cf390d4601

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	83.5 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 20 via pivot

hypothesisThe parent's fitness hadn't resolved (null), so this pivot explored a very different structural region — much wider arms and a tighter deck gap — to see if a stiffer, more compact frame in the pa12_cf material family could carve out a new niche.

methodWidened the arms substantially, reduced front sweep, tightened the deck gap by several millimeters, and thinned the plates slightly.

resultInvalid: the thinner plates fell below the minimum wall gauge pa12_cf requires (1.4mm vs a 1.6mm floor). The lesson is that pa12_cf's thickness floor is stricter than cf_plate's, so thickness cuts that are safe in carbon fiber can break the mold-strength constraint here. Worth testing: keep plate thickness at or above the pa12_cf floor while still exploring the wider-arm, tighter-deck-gap idea.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.28
arm width	×1.29
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	30.4°
rear sweep	34.4°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	22.8 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate c90d90d7c88c

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	103.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 20 via pivot

hypothesisWith the parent stuck at 6.431, this pivot bet that a much sharper rear sweep (more V-tail-like) plus a slight battery tilt could cut rear-facing drag and improve weight balance.

methodPushed rear sweep up sharply, added a small battery wedge tilt, and trimmed front sweep slightly.

resultInvalid: the sharper rear sweep caused the arm root tongues to collide on the main plate, a geometric packing failure. This shows large sweep swings need matching changes to arm root width or position to keep the tongues clear. Worth testing: pair a big rear-sweep increase with a narrower arm root or repositioned tongue to avoid the collision.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	30.5°
rear sweep	52.8°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	27.0 mm
battery wedge	2.4°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate c9fa6339c0ff

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	93.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 20 via pivot

hypothesisThe parent was near the best-so-far at 6.274, so this pivot bet that shortening the main plate while lengthening the arms could trim mass without compromising stiffness.

methodShortened the plate length noticeably, increased plate thickness slightly, reduced front sweep, and lengthened the arms further.

resultInvalid: shortening the plate thinned the mid-plate web below the required minimum (1.11mm vs 1.47mm needed), even with the higher thickness multiplier — the length cut dominated the web geometry. This shows plate-length and plate-thickness interact in a way that a simple thickness bump can't fully compensate for. Worth testing: check mid-web thickness directly when shrinking plate length, or apply a larger thickness increase to offset it.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	39.4°
plate length	×0.85
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.1 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 2406afc3979d

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	98.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 20 via crossover

hypothesisThis self-crossover of the 6.298 performer bet that thicker plates plus a purer carbon-fiber blend could add stiffness margin and push past the current leader.

methodSubstantially thickened the plates, trimmed front sweep slightly, and shifted the material blend to pure carbon fiber.

resultInvalid: the thicker plate geometry caused the arm root tongues to collide on the main plate — the same failure mode seen in c90d90d7c88c. This repeated failure shows plate thickness above roughly 0.85x needs matching arm-root spacing to avoid tongue collisions. Worth testing: cap plate thickness increases below that threshold, or widen arm root spacing whenever thickness is pushed higher.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.31
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	30.8°
rear sweep	39.4°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	29.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.90
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 96f545f25cbe

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.298 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.5% better
scenario mean	3.880 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.835 Wh/km
frame mass	92.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 19 via crossover

hypothesisCrossover between two near-best performers, 1704aea48de9 (6.274) and 52ab8e14cb63 (6.31); bet was that blending their deck gap and material traits could land between or beat both.

methodDeck gap opened (26.0→29.5mm), material nudged marginally toward cf_plate blend (0.00→0.01), arm width effectively unchanged.

result6.298 — lands between the two parents but doesn't beat best-so-far (6.257), coming within about 0.04 of it. This suggests a deck gap near 29–30mm is a mild lever worth isolating on the champion lineage itself. Worth testing: apply just the deck-gap increase directly to reigning champion 54a73703249e and see if it pushes past 6.257.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.307	140.5	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.029	171.2	39.1°
crosswind	3.872	164.5	33.8°
gusty_light	3.710	157.6	32.7°
hot_thin	3.529	149.9	27.6°
storm	4.835	205.4	31.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.31
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	39.4°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	29.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d3b6554ace86

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.431 Wh/km
vs baseline	6.6% better
scenario mean	3.962 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.937 Wh/km
frame mass	103.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 19 via crossover

hypothesisSelf-crossover of strong performer 1704aea48de9 (6.274), exploring nearby mutations to see if minor thickening/widening could round out its edges.

methodArm thickness increased (4.0→4.6mm), plate slightly lengthened (×0.97→×1.01), arm width widened (×0.76→×0.81), deck gap opened (26.0→27.2mm).

result6.431 — worse than the parent's 6.274 and off best-so-far. The added arm and plate mass outweighed any structural benefit, consistent with this generation's pattern that thickening past the champion lineage's lean profile costs efficiency. Worth testing: the deck-gap increase in isolation, since deck-gap changes haven't clearly hurt elsewhere this generation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.376	143.4	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.115	174.8	39.3°
crosswind	3.957	168.1	34.0°
gusty_light	3.787	160.9	32.8°
hot_thin	3.602	153.0	27.6°
storm	4.937	209.7	32.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.31
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	39.3°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	27.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate bd388d17a4cf

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.496 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.7% better
scenario mean	4.002 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.989 Wh/km
frame mass	107.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 19 via pivot

hypothesisParent f6397fd6043c (6.487) had plateaued with a front-heavy sweep and a fairly thin plate; the bet was that rebalancing sweep front-to-rear while nudging plate thickness up a touch could trim drag without tripping the web-thickness constraint.

methodRear sweep opened slightly (47.1°→48.4°), front sweep trimmed a hair (44.0°→43.8°), plate thickness nudged up slightly (×0.71→×0.75), plate width essentially unchanged.

result6.496 — essentially flat with, and marginally worse than, the parent's 6.487; not a new winner against the 6.257 best-so-far. The small thickness increase likely added just enough mass to cancel out any drag benefit from the sweep rebalance. Worth testing: the same sweep tweak but with thickness held flat or reduced, to see if the sweep benefit shows through without the added mass.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.405	144.7	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.168	177.1	39.8°
crosswind	3.996	169.8	34.5°
gusty_light	3.821	162.3	33.0°
hot_thin	3.632	154.3	27.7°
storm	4.989	211.9	34.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	43.8°
rear sweep	48.4°
plate length	×1.29
plate width	×1.23
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 0e35d1c372f5✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.588 Wh/km
vs baseline	4.3% better
scenario mean	4.060 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.057 Wh/km
frame mass	108.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 19 via designer

hypothesisClaude-designer candidate testing a lean-arm, high-sweep, large-plate hypothesis with a large forward battery wedge, betting that shifting CG forward would help headwind/crosswind efficiency.

methodHand-designed genome: moderate arm length (×1.15) with a lean section (4.5mm, ×0.75 width, ×0.55 waist), steep sweeps (44°/50°), enlarged plate (×1.28/×1.24), thin plate (×0.70), and a large 13.0° battery wedge.

result6.588 — valid but well off best-so-far (6.257) and behind most pivots this generation, worst in storm (5.06) and cold headwind (4.24). The steep sweep angles and oversized plate likely added drag/mass the wedge's CG benefit didn't offset. Worth testing: keep the lean arm profile (close to the champion's) but dial the wedge back to 4–5° and shrink the plate toward the champion's dimensions to isolate whether the wedge alone helps.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.455	146.8	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.245	180.3	39.8°
crosswind	4.051	172.1	34.7°
gusty_light	3.872	164.5	33.2°
hot_thin	3.679	156.3	27.9°
storm	5.057	214.8	34.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	44.0°
rear sweep	50.0°
plate length	×1.28
plate width	×1.24
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	13.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 8bd7e8d0aa04

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.618 Wh/km
vs baseline	3.9% better
scenario mean	4.077 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.082 Wh/km
frame mass	118.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 19 via pivot

hypothesisParent a8cec93bcca6 (6.546) ran a short plate with a thick section and tight waist; bet was that lengthening the plate while relaxing the waist and thinning the plate could trade mass for structural margin.

methodPlate lengthened (×0.96→×1.16), arm waist relaxed (×0.55→×0.75), plate thickness reduced (×1.24→×1.06), deck gap tightened (40.7→36.4mm).

result6.618 — worse than the parent (6.546) and well off best-so-far. The longer plate and looser waist likely added more mass/drag than the thinner section saved. Worth testing: the plate-length increase in isolation, holding waist and deck gap at the parent's values, to see if length alone is the culprit.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.470	147.4	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.240	180.1	39.7°
crosswind	4.074	173.1	34.5°
gusty_light	3.893	165.4	33.0°
hot_thin	3.702	157.3	27.7°
storm	5.082	215.9	33.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.34
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.75
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	35.2°
plate length	×1.16
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	36.4 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.06
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 28ee1aea28cb

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.874 Wh/km
vs baseline	0.2% better
scenario mean	4.234 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.280 Wh/km
frame mass	133.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 19 via pivot

hypothesisSame parent f6397fd6043c (6.487); bet was that beefing up arm thickness and committing fully to pure cf_plate (dropping the material blend) would buy stiffness headroom worth its weight.

methodArm thickness increased substantially (4.0→5.6mm), arm width widened (×0.75→×0.81), plate width trimmed (×1.23→×1.19), material shifted fully to pure cf_plate.

result6.874 — clearly worse than the parent (6.487) and best-so-far. The heavier, thicker arms cost more in every scenario than the material purity or narrower plate saved, most visible in storm (5.28) and crosswind (4.22). Worth testing: the material-purity shift alone, without the arm thickness increase, to isolate whether mass or material choice drove the regression.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.596	152.8	25.8°
cold_headwind	4.436	188.5	40.4°
crosswind	4.225	179.5	34.9°
gusty_light	4.036	171.5	33.5°
hot_thin	3.833	162.8	28.0°
storm	5.280	224.3	36.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	5.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	44.0°
rear sweep	47.5°
plate length	×1.29
plate width	×1.19
deck gap	25.1 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.73
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 8ca690fa1442

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	7.577 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.0% worse
scenario mean	4.664 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.825 Wh/km
frame mass	178.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 19 via immigrant

hypothesisA second random immigrant, probing a heavy, over-built corner of the design space to test whether robustness through mass could still be competitive.

methodFresh random genome: long arms (×1.27) with a very thick section (7.2mm), moderate waist (×0.71), aggressive sweeps (49.5°/44.2°), large plate (×1.29/×1.21), wide deck gap (35.9mm), battery wedge 5.3°, cf_plate.

result7.577 — valid but far worse than best-so-far (6.257) and near the bottom of the generation, worst in storm (5.82) and crosswind (4.64). The thick arms and oversized plate add mass that the efficiency metric punishes across every scenario, confirming over-built robustness isn't free in Wh/km terms. Worth testing: keep the aggressive sweep angles but pair them with much leaner, shorter arms closer to the champion's profile.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.947	167.7	26.1°
cold_headwind	4.948	210.2	41.1°
crosswind	4.640	197.1	35.8°
gusty_light	4.427	188.1	34.1°
hot_thin	4.199	178.4	28.4°
storm	5.825	247.5	40.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.96
arm waist	×0.71
arm thickness	7.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	49.5°
rear sweep	44.2°
plate length	×1.29
plate width	×1.21
deck gap	35.9 mm
battery wedge	5.3°
plate thickness	×0.77
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate fd0496c33092

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	92.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 19 via pivot

hypothesisParent 54a73703249e is the reigning best-so-far (6.257); bet was that shortening the plate and pushing sweep asymmetry further (more rear, less front) could shave mass and drag off the champion.

methodPlate shortened (×0.97→×0.85), rear sweep opened (36.2°→41.1°), front sweep pulled in (33.5°→30.0°), arm width widened slightly (×0.77→×0.86).

resultInvalid — the shortened plate failed the web-thickness check (1.11mm vs 1.47mm stock minimum) without a compensating thickness increase. This shows the champion's plate length is already close to the minimum safe margin at its current thickness. Worth testing: the same sweep changes with plate length left near the champion's value, or shortened only alongside a proportional thickness increase.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.86
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	41.1°
plate length	×0.85
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	25.9 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 4e91de63adb4

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	100.8 g
material	asa
born	generation 19 via pivot

hypothesisParent d8d770d5f10a was itself unevaluated/invalid; the bet was that shortening the plate while thickening it and adding a small battery wedge might fix whatever made the parent non-viable.

methodPlate shortened (×1.00→×0.85), plate thickness increased (×1.00→×1.14), front sweep opened slightly (31.4°→33.4°), small battery wedge added (0→0.9°), material asa.

resultInvalid — plate web still too thin (1.12mm vs 1.47mm stock); the length cut outpaced the thickness gain, the same failure mode as fd0496c33092. Lesson: shrinking plate length is unsafe unless thickness scales up more aggressively than it did here. Worth testing: skip the length cut for this lineage and test the wedge/sweep changes on the parent's original plate length.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×0.95
arm waist	×0.88
arm thickness	6.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.4°
rear sweep	34.8°
plate length	×0.85
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.2 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×1.14
material	asa

parents

candidate 83064d76f9ee

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_top 1.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	86.8 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 19 via pivot

hypothesisParent c47e1f6da0e0 was unevaluated; bet was that shifting the material blend toward pet_cf and thickening the plate could unlock a lighter, still-stiff configuration.

methodMaterial blend shifted toward pet_cf (0.02→0.40), plate thickness increased (×0.70→×1.05), rear sweep tightened (38.2°→35.2°), arm thickness trimmed (4.5→4.0mm).

resultInvalid — plate_top too thin (1.30mm vs 1.75mm stock). The pet_cf shift raises the required minimum web thickness well above what a cf_plate design would need, so the same relative thickening fell short. Lesson: material choice changes the safety margin needed, not just the stiffness/weight tradeoff. Worth testing: keep the pet_cf shift but push plate thickness closer to ×1.3–1.4 to clear the material-specific minimum.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.9°
rear sweep	35.2°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	28.3 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×1.05
material	pet_cf

parents

candidate 42b3468e3332

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_top 1.39 mm, stock 1.75 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	117.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 19 via pivot

hypothesisSame parent c47e1f6da0e0; bet was that a large plate-thickness jump plus a forward battery wedge would give enough structural margin while improving CG balance.

methodPlate thickness increased substantially (×0.70→×1.25), battery wedge added (0→3.9°), plate width nudged (×0.95→×0.98), arm length nudged (×1.31→×1.33).

resultInvalid — plate_top still too thin (1.39mm vs 1.75mm stock) despite the big thickness increase, even with cf_plate material. This suggests the battery wedge itself may be locally carving out web material at the plate top independent of the thickness gene. Worth testing: the same thickness increase without the battery wedge, to see if removing the wedge alone clears the constraint.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.33
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.2°
rear sweep	38.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	25.6 mm
battery wedge	3.9°
plate thickness	×1.25
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 19868d12b115

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	95.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 19 via crossover

hypothesisParents were the reigning best-so-far 54a73703249e (6.257) and an unevaluated f66bf5675cbb; bet was that blending in wider arms and a lower rear sweep from the second parent could nudge the champion further.

methodArm width widened (×0.77→×0.85), plate thickness increased slightly (×0.70→×0.77), rear sweep reduced (36.2°→34.0°), front sweep raised marginally (33.5°→34.2°).

resultInvalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate, a geometric interference distinct from this generation's web-thickness failures. The wider arm combined with the closer front/rear sweep angles left no clearance at the root. Worth testing: keep the small sweep adjustments but revert arm width to the champion's value to check whether sweep alone is viable without the collision.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.28
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.2°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.1 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.77
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 45099c22a47c

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pet_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	133.5 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 19 via immigrant

hypothesisRandom immigrant meant to inject diversity into a population converging around the 6.25–6.5 band; explores a larger, higher-sweep design point on pet_cf material.

methodFresh random genome: moderate arm scaling (length ×1.20, width ×1.03, waist ×1.16, thickness 4.7mm), aggressive sweeps (49.6°/41.1°), enlarged thick plate (×1.27/×1.13, ×1.22 thickness), battery wedge 4.0°, pet_cf material.

resultInvalid — arm tip deflection specific to pet_cf, meaning this material is too compliant for the chosen arm length/thickness. Confirms pet_cf needs shorter or thicker arms than cf_plate to pass deflection checks. Worth testing: rerun this same geometry with cf_plate, or with meaningfully thicker arms, to see if the underlying design point has merit once the material mismatch is fixed.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.20
arm width	×1.03
arm waist	×1.16
arm thickness	4.7 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	49.6°
rear sweep	41.1°
plate length	×1.27
plate width	×1.13
deck gap	31.3 mm
battery wedge	4.0°
plate thickness	×1.22
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 624da8bb96ab✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm resonance with rotor 1P
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	234.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 19 via designer

hypothesisClaude-designer candidate testing a deliberately over-built, high-stiffness hypothesis — thick, wide arms and a thick plate — to see if maximal structural margin could open room for bolder sweep/deck-gap choices elsewhere.

methodHand-designed genome: arm length ×1.10, width ×1.35 (much wider), waist ×1.25 (looser), thickness 8.0mm (heaviest arm section this generation), plate thickness ×1.50, deck gap 38.0mm, moderate sweeps (34°/37°).

resultInvalid — arm resonance with rotor 1P, a dynamic constraint rather than a static one. The thick, wide, stiff arm shifted the natural frequency into the rotor's excitation band. Lesson for the designer: maximizing section stiffness isn't safe by itself — arm geometry must also dodge the rotor's 1P frequency. Worth testing: keep the arm width/waist but trim thickness or extend length to detune the arm away from 1P.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.10
arm width	×1.35
arm waist	×1.25
arm thickness	8.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.0°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.50
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 52ab8e14cb63

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.310 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.4% better
scenario mean	3.888 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.844 Wh/km
frame mass	93.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 18 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing a near-best performer (6.296) with the reigning champion (6.257), the bet is that combining their genes could produce a new best.

methodWidened the plate slightly, tightened the deck gap by about 1.7 mm, trimmed front sweep marginally, and kept arm thickness unchanged.

result6.31 -- lands between the two parents but does not beat the champion's 6.257, so no new winner. Storm remains the worst scenario at 4.84 Wh/km, suggesting the plate widening or deck-gap tightening cost a small margin versus the champion baseline. Next idea: test the deck-gap tightening alone against the champion to isolate its effect.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.314	140.8	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.037	171.5	39.1°
crosswind	3.881	164.9	33.9°
gusty_light	3.718	157.9	32.7°
hot_thin	3.536	150.2	27.6°
storm	4.844	205.8	31.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.5°
rear sweep	38.7°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	31.9 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate f6397fd6043c

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.487 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.8% better
scenario mean	3.997 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.982 Wh/km
frame mass	105.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 18 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing a weaker high-sweep parent (6.475) with the champion (6.257), the bet is that the champion's genes would pull the aggressive-sweep design toward better efficiency.

methodTrimmed rear sweep by about 3 degrees, nudged front sweep up slightly, and left plate dimensions essentially unchanged from the high-sweep parent.

result6.487 -- essentially matches the weaker parent, not the champion, showing the extreme 44/47-degree sweep angles dominate the outcome regardless of crossover with a low-sweep champion. Confirms high sweep is a losing direction this generation. Next idea: stop breeding from high-sweep (>40 degree) lineages and focus offspring on the champion's ~30-33 degree sweep range.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.403	144.6	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.168	177.1	39.9°
crosswind	3.986	169.3	34.5°
gusty_light	3.815	162.1	33.1°
hot_thin	3.627	154.1	27.8°
storm	4.982	211.6	34.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	44.0°
rear sweep	47.1°
plate length	×1.29
plate width	×1.23
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a8cec93bcca6

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.546 Wh/km
vs baseline	4.9% better
scenario mean	4.034 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.024 Wh/km
frame mass	111.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 18 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two mid-tier parents (6.504 and 6.384), the bet is that combining their differing strengths -- plus an untested battery tilt -- could beat either alone.

methodBlended genes from both parents, lengthened the arms further, added a 2.3-degree battery wedge, and made small deck-gap and rear-sweep tweaks.

result6.546 -- worse than both parents, not a new winner. The crossover failed to combine advantages additively; storm remained the weak scenario at 5.02 Wh/km. Next idea: test the battery wedge tilt in isolation on the stronger parent to see if it's what dragged performance down.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.440	146.2	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.195	178.2	39.2°
crosswind	4.024	171.0	34.1°
gusty_light	3.853	163.7	32.8°
hot_thin	3.667	155.8	27.7°
storm	5.024	213.4	32.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.34
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	35.6°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	40.7 mm
battery wedge	2.3°
plate thickness	×1.24
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 7adc86c167f8✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.646 Wh/km
vs baseline	3.5% better
scenario mean	4.094 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.103 Wh/km
frame mass	115.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 18 via designer

hypothesisA hand-designed candidate deliberately exploring a divergent concept from the low-sweep champion lineage: compact waisted arms, steep sweep, a large plate footprint, and a notable battery tilt.

methodShorter, narrower, more waisted arms than the champion, steep 43/52-degree front/rear sweep, an oversized plate (25% longer, 25% wider), and an 8-degree battery wedge.

result6.646 -- well behind the 6.257 best-so-far and behind most valid crossovers, reinforcing (alongside f6397fd6043c) that steep sweep angles hurt efficiency across scenarios, especially storm at 5.10 Wh/km. Next idea: retry this compact-plate concept but with sweep angles pulled back into the champion's 30-33 degree range.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.484	148.0	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.271	181.4	39.7°
crosswind	4.084	173.5	34.6°
gusty_light	3.908	166.0	33.1°
hot_thin	3.715	157.8	27.8°
storm	5.103	216.8	34.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.05
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.70
arm thickness	4.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	43.0°
rear sweep	52.0°
plate length	×1.27
plate width	×1.25
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	8.0°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 5fed623f6b65

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	137.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 18 via pivot

hypothesisThe parent lineage never got evaluated, so this pivot is a blind bet: stiffen the arm dramatically while shrinking the plate footprint to see if a beefier, tighter frame pays off.

methodNearly doubled arm thickness to 7.0 mm, narrowed the plate width slightly, thickened the plate multiplier, and pulled the deck gap in by about 5.5 mm.

resultInvalid: the main plate web collapsed to just 0.21 mm against the 1.90 mm stock minimum. Despite the higher plate-thickness multiplier, shrinking plate width while ballooning arm thickness ate all the web material at the arm root. Worth testing next: repeat the thicker-arm bet but hold plate width at parity so the web isn't starved.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.18
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	7.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.2°
rear sweep	41.5°
plate length	×0.86
plate width	×0.90
deck gap	34.8 mm
battery wedge	1.4°
plate thickness	×0.91
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 404108ce71d8

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	91.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 18 via pivot

hypothesisStarting from a near-best parent (6.274), this pivot bets that a much more compact frame -- shorter arms, tighter deck gap -- would cut drag further.

methodShrank deck gap from 26 mm to 20 mm, shortened arms, and widened both the plate and the arms slightly.

resultInvalid: 20 mm deck gap can't physically fit the FC/ESC stack. A hard packaging floor, not an aero tradeoff. Next idea: retry the arm-shortening/widening bet but keep deck gap at or above ~26 mm.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.17
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	39.1°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.08
deck gap	20.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate da2ee1294058

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	103.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 18 via pivot

hypothesisPivoting directly off the reigning best-so-far frame, this candidate bets that a longer plate and wider deck gap would improve stack clearance and stability without giving up the champion's efficiency.

methodLengthened the plate by about 27%, widened the deck gap by roughly 9.5 mm, reduced front sweep to 30 degrees, and nudged arm thickness up slightly.

resultInvalid: arm root tongues collide on the main plate. Growing the plate while cutting front sweep to 30 degrees pushed the tongue geometry into overlap. Next idea: test the plate-length increase alone, holding front sweep at the champion's ~33.5 degrees.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	35.3°
plate length	×1.23
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	35.6 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 781cc66535e0

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	100.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 18 via pivot

hypothesisWith the parent trailing the best-so-far by over a tenth of a point, this pivot bets that flattening front sweep and widening the arms would recover some of that gap.

methodCut front sweep to 30 degrees, lengthened the plate slightly, widened the arms, and thickened the plate marginally.

resultInvalid: same arm-root tongue collision as the sibling pivot from the champion lineage. This is the second candidate this generation to fail exactly at 30-degree front sweep, suggesting that angle is a real geometric floor for this plate/arm combination. Next idea: test front sweep reduction alone (no plate-length change) to isolate whether sweep or plate growth is the real culprit.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.26
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.65
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	35.6°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	40.2 mm
battery wedge	0.6°
plate thickness	×0.73
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a66e30ecde2f

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	111.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 18 via pivot

hypothesisAlso branching from the current champion, this candidate bets that heavy structural reinforcement -- thicker plate and arms -- plus a small battery tilt for CG tuning could squeeze out more robustness.

methodNearly 50% thicker plate multiplier, thicker arm (4.7 mm), front sweep cut to 30 degrees, and a new 1.6-degree battery wedge added.

resultInvalid: arm root tongues collide again, the third pivot this generation to die at 30-degree front sweep regardless of what else changed. This strongly indicates 30 degrees is a hard geometric wall for the tongue design, not something reinforcement can compensate for. Next idea: test a more conservative sweep floor around 31-32 degrees, or redesign tongue spacing to scale with sweep.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.7 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	23.9 mm
battery wedge	1.6°
plate thickness	×1.03
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 9c39ed818cc8

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	111.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 18 via pivot

hypothesisWith its parent unevaluated, this pivot takes a blind structural bet: fatten the arm cross-section (less waist taper, thicker) for extra strength margin.

methodIncreased arm waist ratio substantially, thickened the arm to 4.8 mm, and nudged front sweep down and rear sweep up a couple degrees.

resultInvalid: plate web thinned to 1.43 mm, just under the 1.90 mm stock minimum. The wider arm waist appears to eat directly into the plate's material budget at the root. Next idea: pair any arm-waist increase with a compensating bump in plate thickness multiplier.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.25
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.83
arm thickness	4.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.2°
rear sweep	43.4°
plate length	×0.85
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	39.3 mm
battery wedge	2.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate f66bf5675cbb

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	135.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 18 via pivot

hypothesisThe parent is well off the pace (6.647 vs 6.257 best), so this pivot bets that a broader structural overhaul -- wider/thicker arms and a different material blend -- could fix whatever weak point is holding it back.

methodWidened and thickened the arms further, increased arm waist ratio, and shifted the material blend composition.

resultInvalid: arm root tongues collide, the fourth collision failure this generation. Piling reinforcement onto an already-underperforming design just pushed the tongue geometry over the edge instead of fixing the underlying weakness. Next idea: tie tongue spacing to arm width automatically so reinforcement bets don't reliably trigger this constraint.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.21
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×1.23
arm thickness	5.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	36.8°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	25.7 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.78
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate c47e1f6da0e0

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	99.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 18 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two mid-pack parents (6.274 and 6.384), the bet is that narrowing the plate while thickening the arms would trade a little material for better efficiency.

methodNarrowed plate width by 5%, thickened arms to 4.5 mm, slightly reduced rear sweep, and made a small material-blend shift.

resultInvalid: plate web thinned to 1.12 mm against the 1.90 mm minimum. This is the third case this generation of narrower plate plus thicker arms breaking the web-thickness constraint, confirming a reliable failure pattern. Next idea: when narrowing plate width, hold arm thickness at the parent baseline or compensate with a plate-thickness multiplier bump.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.31
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.9°
rear sweep	38.2°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×0.95
deck gap	25.8 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 82e4f3f643e4

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	132.2 g
material	petg
born	generation 18 via immigrant

hypothesisA fresh random immigrant, meant to inject diversity and probe a far corner of the design space -- steep sweep angles, a large battery tilt, and PETG instead of carbon fiber -- in case the population is plateauing around the champion's design.

methodFully random genome: long/waisted/thick arms, steep 49/48-degree front/rear sweep, oversized plate length, large 13.3-degree battery wedge, and PETG material.

resultInvalid: plate web too thin at 0.51 mm against the 1.90 mm minimum. The aggressive plate dimensions combined with the softer PETG material left no structural margin. Next idea: constrain immigrant sampling so plate web thickness scales appropriately when PETG or other softer materials are drawn.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.29
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×1.28
arm thickness	5.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	48.9°
rear sweep	48.1°
plate length	×1.25
plate width	×0.92
deck gap	28.8 mm
battery wedge	13.3°
plate thickness	×1.10
material	petg

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate d8d770d5f10a✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (asa)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	100.8 g
material	asa
born	generation 18 via designer

hypothesisA hand-designed candidate testing whether swapping to ASA material, with baseline plate dimensions and champion-adjacent sweep angles, could unlock a lighter or more robust structure.

methodSwitched material to ASA, thickened the arm to 6.0 mm, widened and increased arm waist moderately, and kept plate dimensions at baseline (1.0x) with sweep close to the champion's values.

resultInvalid: arm tip deflection failure. ASA's lower stiffness relative to the carbon-fiber plate couldn't support the arm length/thickness combination under load even with the thicker 6 mm arm. Next idea: retry ASA with either a shorter arm length or a further-increased arm thickness (7 mm+) to pass the deflection check.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×0.95
arm waist	×0.85
arm thickness	6.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.4°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	asa

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 95e7cba302ec

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.296 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.6% better
scenario mean	3.879 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.834 Wh/km
frame mass	92.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 17 via pivot

hypothesisThe parent was a mid-pack performer; the bet was that slimming the arms a touch further and steepening the rear sweep would cut drag without pushing any dimension past its structural margin.

methodArm width narrowed slightly further, rear sweep steepened by about 2 degrees, plate length nudged up a hair, arm thickness left unchanged.

resultFitness improved to 6.296 from the parent's 6.322, but stayed short of the 6.2571847613660045 best-so-far — not a new winner. Storm remains the worst scenario at 4.83, suggesting the frame is still paying a mass or stiffness penalty in the roughest condition. Worth testing next: hold this arm width and sweep combo but attack storm robustness directly, e.g. via a small arm-thickness bump instead of further slimming.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.304	140.3	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.029	171.2	39.1°
crosswind	3.871	164.5	33.8°
gusty_light	3.709	157.6	32.7°
hot_thin	3.526	149.8	27.6°
storm	4.834	205.4	32.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.6°
rear sweep	38.6°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	33.6 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 0b92faa29d10

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.384 Wh/km
vs baseline	7.3% better
scenario mean	3.934 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.900 Wh/km
frame mass	96.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 17 via crossover

hypothesisA crossover bet that blending a decent performer's wider arm waist into the current champion's geometry might combine the best of both.

methodArm waist widened toward the non-champion parent's value, material shifted toward a more mixed blend, deck gap nudged slightly.

resultFitness came in at 6.384, worse than both parents (6.337 and 6.257) and off the best-so-far — the wider waist blend added drag or mass without a matching payoff, a negative interaction rather than synergy. Not a new winner. Next: test the arm-waist widening in isolation off the champion alone to see if it's the waist change itself or the crossover combination that hurts.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.354	142.5	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.099	174.1	39.5°
crosswind	3.920	166.6	34.1°
gusty_light	3.757	159.6	33.0°
hot_thin	3.575	151.9	27.8°
storm	4.900	208.2	33.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.26
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.66
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.4°
rear sweep	35.6°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	40.4 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 83f19dec5965✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.475 Wh/km
vs baseline	6.0% better
scenario mean	3.988 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.973 Wh/km
frame mass	104.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 17 via designer

hypothesisA designer candidate that kept the champion's arm dimensions but deliberately pushed much wider sweep angles and a larger plate footprint, betting the extra sweep would pay off despite the added plate mass.

methodArm length, width, waist and thickness matched the champion; front sweep and rear sweep both steepened substantially, and plate length and width both enlarged well past stock.

resultValid at 6.475, but well off the 6.2571847613660045 best-so-far, with storm scenario (4.97) again the heaviest penalty — the larger plate footprint likely added more mass/drag than the wider sweep angles recovered. Next: keep the champion's compact plate and test the wide sweep angles alone.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.392	144.1	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.158	176.6	39.8°
crosswind	3.979	169.0	34.5°
gusty_light	3.808	161.8	33.1°
hot_thin	3.619	153.7	27.8°
storm	4.973	211.3	34.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	43.4°
rear sweep	50.0°
plate length	×1.28
plate width	×1.24
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 232aae2975ed✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.504 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.6% better
scenario mean	4.008 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.993 Wh/km
frame mass	110.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 17 via designer

hypothesisA second designer candidate that isolated plate thickness as the single variable, keeping everything else matched to the champion, to test whether extra stiffness pays for itself.

methodArm dimensions, sweep angles, plate length/width and deck gap all matched the champion; plate thickness multiplier nearly doubled.

resultValid at 6.504, but worse than the 6.257 champion despite matching its geometry almost exactly — the added plate mass from the thickness increase wasn't offset by any robustness gain. This confirms the champion's leaner plate thickness is closer to optimal than heavier alternatives. Next: if testing stiffness again, compensate elsewhere in the mass budget (e.g. thinner arms) rather than a blanket plate-thickness increase.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.418	145.2	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.157	176.6	39.0°
crosswind	4.000	169.9	33.9°
gusty_light	3.831	162.8	32.7°
hot_thin	3.647	154.9	27.6°
storm	4.993	212.1	32.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	36.3°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.25
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 6a910b7b31dd

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.647 Wh/km
vs baseline	3.5% better
scenario mean	4.093 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.110 Wh/km
frame mass	119.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 17 via mutation

hypothesisSame weak-performing parent as several pivots this generation; the bet was a small nudge toward the cf_plate mainline geometry to see if it closes the gap to the leaders.

methodArm waist widened slightly, plate length brought to full stock, arm length trimmed a touch, material shifted fully to cf_plate.

resultFitness came in at 6.647, essentially flat with the parent's 6.63 and well off the 6.2571847613660045 best-so-far. Storm scenario (5.11) is again the worst offender, suggesting this whole parent lineage carries a structural drag or mass penalty that small mutations can't fix. Next: abandon this lineage in favor of pivots off the stronger champion family.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.470	147.4	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.286	182.1	40.3°
crosswind	4.080	173.3	34.6°
gusty_light	3.904	165.8	33.4°
hot_thin	3.706	157.4	27.9°
storm	5.110	217.1	36.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×1.15
arm thickness	4.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 41f6a5857003✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.769 Wh/km
vs baseline	1.7% better
scenario mean	4.169 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.201 Wh/km
frame mass	121.2 g
material	pla_plus
born	generation 17 via designer

hypothesisA third designer candidate testing a more conservative build philosophy — thicker arms, wider waist, shorter length, PLA-plus material — as a 'sturdier but heavier' contrast to the lean cf_plate champion.

methodArm length shortened, arm width and waist both widened, arm thickness increased substantially, material switched to pla_plus, sweep/plate/deck-gap left matched to the champion.

resultValid but the weakest of the three designer candidates at 6.769, far from the 6.2571847613660045 best-so-far, with storm scenario (5.2) again the worst offender. The heavier PLA-plus, thick-arm approach clearly costs more energy than it buys in robustness. Next: abandon the thick-arm/PLA direction for this frame — the lean cf_plate family is dominating every scenario tested this generation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.520	149.5	25.8°
cold_headwind	4.390	186.5	40.3°
crosswind	4.171	177.2	35.0°
gusty_light	3.973	168.8	33.5°
hot_thin	3.757	159.6	28.1°
storm	5.201	221.0	36.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.85
arm thickness	6.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	36.3°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	pla_plus

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate e69f4fe82b1c

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	90.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 17 via pivot

hypothesisThe parent needed to shed plate mass and improve weathercocking behavior in crosswinds; the bet was a shorter plate paired with a much sharper rear sweep.

methodPlate length cut substantially, rear sweep increased by nearly 6 degrees, with small nudges to arm waist and width.

resultInvalid — the plate web thinned to 1.11 mm against a 1.47 mm stock minimum, so the plate-length cut was too aggressive for this lineage's thickness setting. This shows plate length and plate thickness are tightly coupled here and can't be moved independently by this much. Next: retry the same rear-sweep steepening but keep plate length within a few percent of the parent's value.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.25
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.4°
rear sweep	41.3°
plate length	×0.85
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	40.3 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 2f4ca49a31f0

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	176.8 g
material	pla_plus
born	generation 17 via pivot

hypothesisThe parent was a heavy, thick-armed underperformer; the bet was that slimming the arms and shortening the plate could recover most of that lost efficiency.

methodArm width reduced substantially, arm waist widened, plate length shortened, rear sweep flattened slightly.

resultInvalid — plate web dropped to 1.02 mm against a 1.90 mm stock requirement. Because the parent already carried thick arms and a heavier plate-thickness multiplier, cutting plate length on top of that combination blew through the safety margin faster than expected. Lesson: candidates descended from this heavier lineage can't tolerate the same plate-length cuts the lean cf_plate mainline can. Next: keep plate thickness fixed and vary only sweep angles when working from this lineage.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.19
arm width	×0.93
arm waist	×1.30
arm thickness	8.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	43.2°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×0.85
plate width	×1.20
deck gap	36.8 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.35
material	pla_plus

parents

candidate 70e5d32f5850

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	115.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 17 via pivot

hypothesisThe parent was lagging the leaders; the bet was that a shallower front sweep and longer arms would improve airflow while trimming the waist pinch.

methodFront sweep flattened slightly, arm waist trimmed, arm length stretched, battery wedge tilted a small amount.

resultInvalid — the arm root tongues collide on the main plate, a mounting-geometry failure from stretching the arms while flattening the sweep. This reveals arm length and front sweep are coupled at the mount interface: lengthening arms needs either a steeper sweep or more tongue clearance to stay clear. Next: retest the longer arm length while holding front sweep at or above its parent value.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.33
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×1.05
arm thickness	4.4 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	37.1°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	25.9 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 281fd479fb78

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	91.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 17 via pivot

hypothesisThe parent never flew at all, so this was a repair attempt — opening the deck gap and tilting the battery wedge to fix whatever had killed it, while keeping the narrow-arm family.

methodBattery wedge angle increased sharply, deck gap widened, arm width increased slightly, plate length brought back up near full stock.

resultStill invalid, but for a different reason than the parent — plate web thinned to 1.45 mm against a 1.90 mm requirement. The repair fixed one constraint but exposed another: this lineage's low plate-thickness multiplier can't support near-stock plate length. Next: raise plate thickness before touching plate length or width again in this lineage.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.29
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.59
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.7°
rear sweep	39.8°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.85
deck gap	26.7 mm
battery wedge	3.6°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate f8c049a2a28e

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_top 1.38 mm, stock 1.75 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	121.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 17 via pivot

hypothesisSame underperforming parent as several other pivots this generation; the bet was widening the deck gap and locking in cf_plate material to shave weight.

methodDeck gap widened, plate width trimmed slightly, material shifted fully to cf_plate, arm width increased a touch.

resultInvalid — plate web thinned to 1.38 mm against a 1.75 mm requirement. Widening the deck gap while trimming plate width ate into the top plate's web margin. Lesson: deck-gap increases on this parent need a thickness increase to compensate, not a width cut. Next: retry the deck-gap widening alone, holding plate width and thickness at the parent's values.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.31
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×1.11
arm thickness	4.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	36.4°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	29.6 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.76
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d87336fcc2c0

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	123.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 17 via pivot

hypothesisDescended from the reigning best-so-far, this pivot bet on toughening the arms and tightening the frame — thicker arms, shorter deck gap, flatter front sweep, longer arms — to push past the plateau.

methodArm thickness nearly doubled, deck gap shrunk considerably, front sweep flattened, arm length stretched further.

resultInvalid — the deck gap shrank too far for the FC/ESC stack to physically fit. A costly lesson coming from the champion lineage: deck gap has a hard practical floor that can't be traded away even for stiffness gains. Next: keep deck gap near or above the champion's value and test the thicker-arm idea in isolation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	5.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	36.6°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	20.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.78
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 1c0b2050be82

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	91.5 g
material	petg
born	generation 17 via immigrant

hypothesisA pure random immigrant injected to keep diversity in a population that has plateaued around the current best-so-far; no parent performance to react to.

methodEntirely fresh genome — wider arms, much steeper front and rear sweep angles, wide deck gap, tilted battery wedge, thick plate, petg material.

resultInvalid — the arm tongue bolts miss the main plate, a basic mounting failure typical of unconstrained sampling at extreme sweep angles. This confirms the population's tight clustering around 30-something-degree sweep angles isn't just historical drift but a real geometric ceiling. Next: bias immigrant sampling to keep sweep angles under roughly 45 degrees so bolt alignment holds more often.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.94
arm width	×1.07
arm waist	×0.78
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	51.8°
rear sweep	56.0°
plate length	×0.89
plate width	×0.89
deck gap	38.6 mm
battery wedge	5.8°
plate thickness	×1.39
material	petg

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 53ba7d23d390

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_top 1.34 mm, stock 1.75 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	89.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 17 via mutation

hypothesisDescended from the current best-so-far, this mutation bet on a small refinement — steepening front sweep and trimming plate length to shave a bit more drag off an already-strong design.

methodFront sweep increased, plate length shortened slightly.

resultInvalid — plate web thinned to 1.34 mm against a 1.75 mm requirement. Even a modest length cut on the champion's already-lean plate crosses the structural floor, showing the champion's plate geometry has little slack left. Next: try the front-sweep steepening alone, without touching plate length.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.6°
rear sweep	36.2°
plate length	×0.93
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.1 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 5ec33e3dea91

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.322 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.2% better
scenario mean	3.895 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.854 Wh/km
frame mass	93.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 16 via pivot

hypothesisSame champion parent as candidate c61da0591e9a; this pivot tests a gentler version of the deck-gap-widening idea paired with a wider arm to see if a moderate step pays off where the aggressive one didn't.

methodDeck gap widened to 33.7mm from 26.1mm (a smaller jump than the sibling pivot), arm width increased to 0.81x from 0.77x, plate width trimmed slightly, front sweep pulled in a touch.

resultFitness landed at 6.322 — worse than the 6.257 champion but the best result among this generation's valid candidates. It confirms deck-gap widening is directionally costly even at a smaller step, and the extra arm width didn't offset it. Worth trying the champion's original deck gap with just the wider arm in isolation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.317	140.9	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.053	172.2	39.4°
crosswind	3.885	165.0	34.0°
gusty_light	3.723	158.1	32.8°
hot_thin	3.539	150.4	27.7°
storm	4.854	206.2	32.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.5°
rear sweep	36.6°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	33.7 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate c61da0591e9a

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.337 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.0% better
scenario mean	3.906 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.863 Wh/km
frame mass	93.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 16 via pivot

hypothesisParent 54a73703249e sits at the current best-so-far; this pivot bets that opening up the deck gap and adding a slight battery wedge could redistribute weight for a further gain without touching the arm/plate footprint much.

methodDeck gap widened from 26.1mm to 40.1mm, battery tilted to 0.9° from flat, arm length trimmed marginally, rear sweep pulled in slightly to 35.6°.

resultFitness rose to 6.337, worse than the 6.257 parent and no threat to best-so-far. Storm (4.86) drove most of the penalty, suggesting the wider deck gap added frontal area/weight without any aero payoff. Worth testing a smaller deck-gap increase (e.g. +5mm) in isolation to see if any of this move helps.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.332	141.6	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.062	172.6	39.3°
crosswind	3.895	165.5	34.0°
gusty_light	3.731	158.5	32.8°
hot_thin	3.551	150.9	27.7°
storm	4.863	206.6	32.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.26
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.4°
rear sweep	35.6°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	40.1 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b3aaaeaeec58

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.367 Wh/km
vs baseline	7.5% better
scenario mean	3.926 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.882 Wh/km
frame mass	97.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 16 via pivot

hypothesisParent 7d6bb6555ba3 (6.36) was already off the frontier; this pivot swaps sweep bias between front and rear to test whether reversing which end sweeps more helps.

methodRear sweep reduced to 34.0° from 38.0°, front sweep increased to 37.3° from 36.2°, arm width and deck gap nudged marginally.

resultFitness came in at 6.367, essentially flat vs the 6.36 parent and well off the 6.257 best-so-far. Swapping sweep bias didn't move the needle, suggesting this parent's sweep angles aren't the limiting factor. Next worth trying a bigger structural change off this lineage rather than more sweep tweaks.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.362	142.8	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.068	172.8	39.2°
crosswind	3.912	166.2	33.8°
gusty_light	3.750	159.3	32.7°
hot_thin	3.579	152.0	27.6°
storm	4.882	207.4	32.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.3°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	24.6 mm
battery wedge	0.8°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 37eb0ed73f7e

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.418 Wh/km
vs baseline	6.8% better
scenario mean	3.957 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.924 Wh/km
frame mass	99.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 16 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two mid-pack parents (567629068d98 at 6.397, 1704aea48de9 at 6.274) bets that blending their sweep and material genes finds a combination better than either alone.

methodMaterial blended toward cf_plate, front sweep pulled back to 47.4° from 49.2°, arm width widened to 0.88x, battery wedge increased slightly to 1.4°.

resultFitness landed at 6.418, worse than both parents and well off the 6.257 best-so-far. The blend didn't inherit either side's better traits — a front sweep near 47° looks too aggressive for this arm/plate combination. Worth trying a crossover that keeps sweep closer to the stronger parent's value instead of averaging.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.387	143.9	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.113	174.7	39.6°
crosswind	3.936	167.2	34.0°
gusty_light	3.777	160.5	33.0°
hot_thin	3.604	153.1	27.7°
storm	4.924	209.2	33.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.26
arm width	×0.88
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	47.4°
rear sweep	35.6°
plate length	×1.06
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	22.8 mm
battery wedge	1.4°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate fb0aaa4c0bbf

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.475 Wh/km
vs baseline	6.0% better
scenario mean	3.992 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.965 Wh/km
frame mass	101.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 16 via pivot

hypothesisParent fb429755f2c9 (6.309) had headroom; this pivot bets that a strong battery wedge plus a wider, thicker plate could rebalance the airframe for a gain.

methodBattery wedge tilted sharply to 4.7° from flat, plate width widened to 1.08x, plate thickness increased to 0.86x from 0.70x, arm length extended to 1.35x.

resultFitness worsened sharply to 6.475 from the 6.309 parent, with every scenario getting worse, especially storm (4.97). The aggressive battery tilt combined with a much heavier plate likely added drag and mass with no offsetting benefit. Next worth isolating the battery wedge alone at a smaller angle to see if it's the wedge or the plate thickening that hurt more.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.418	145.2	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.156	176.6	39.6°
crosswind	3.971	168.7	34.0°
gusty_light	3.809	161.8	33.0°
hot_thin	3.634	154.4	27.8°
storm	4.965	210.9	34.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	52.0°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.08
deck gap	24.2 mm
battery wedge	4.7°
plate thickness	×0.86
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a072202cd3c9✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.630 Wh/km
vs baseline	3.7% better
scenario mean	4.082 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.096 Wh/km
frame mass	117.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 16 via designer

hypothesisA designer-authored probe testing whether deliberately thickening the arm waist well beyond the champion lineage's slender profile buys enough stiffness margin to justify its added weight.

methodHand-set to a champion-like footprint (arm length 1.30x, sweep near 32°/37°, deck gap 26mm) but with arm waist fattened to 1.10x, roughly double the champion's typical value, and thickness at 4.5mm.

resultFitness came in at 6.63, notably worse than the 6.257 best-so-far and worse than most pivots this generation. The fat waist added mass across every scenario without a compensating aero or structural win, suggesting the champion's slender waist is already close to optimal for this material/thickness combo. Next worth testing an intermediate waist (~0.7-0.8x) to find where the mass penalty starts.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.461	147.0	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.275	181.6	40.3°
crosswind	4.071	172.9	34.6°
gusty_light	3.894	165.4	33.3°
hot_thin	3.696	157.0	27.9°
storm	5.096	216.5	36.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×1.10
arm thickness	4.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate f25111665ee7✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.641 Wh/km
vs baseline	3.6% better
scenario mean	4.092 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.097 Wh/km
frame mass	116.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 16 via designer

hypothesisA designer probe testing whether a much larger plate footprint, for potential payload/battery growth, combined with aggressive rear sweep could still be competitive on efficiency.

methodHand-set with plate length and width both scaled up substantially (1.22x/1.25x) versus the champion's near-stock plates, rear sweep pushed to 46°, moderate arm thickness at 4.5mm.

resultFitness came in at 6.641, worse than the 6.257 best-so-far and similar in magnitude to a072202cd3c9's shortfall. The oversized plates added drag/weight across every scenario without a compensating benefit, reinforcing that the champion's near-stock plate footprint sits closer to the efficient frontier. Next worth testing a smaller plate upsize (~1.05-1.10x) to find where footprint growth stops being a net loss.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.485	148.0	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.267	181.3	39.9°
crosswind	4.085	173.6	34.7°
gusty_light	3.904	165.8	33.2°
hot_thin	3.713	157.7	27.8°
storm	5.097	216.6	34.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.28
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	46.0°
plate length	×1.22
plate width	×1.25
deck gap	27.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate f9f7a0a90601

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	7.779 Wh/km
vs baseline	13.0% worse
scenario mean	4.785 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.989 Wh/km
frame mass	187.9 g
material	pla_plus
born	generation 16 via immigrant

hypothesisA fresh random immigrant, meant to test whether an entirely different region of design space — heavier arms, wider plates, softer material — could out-compete the refined champion lineage.

methodArms scaled up across the board (length, width, waist all above 1x, thickness 8.3mm), plates enlarged and thickened to 1.35x, deck gap widened to 36.9mm, material switched to pla_plus.

resultFitness came in at 7.779, far worse than the 6.257 best-so-far and the worst valid result this generation. The oversized arms/plates plus a weaker, denser material piled on mass across every scenario, especially storm (5.99). This confirms the champion lineage's slimmer, cf_plate-based approach is well ahead of this design region — no need to explore further immigrants this heavy.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	4.024	171.0	26.2°
cold_headwind	5.124	217.7	41.7°
crosswind	4.750	201.8	36.0°
gusty_light	4.533	192.6	34.6°
hot_thin	4.287	182.1	28.7°
storm	5.989	254.4	42.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.19
arm width	×1.21
arm waist	×1.18
arm thickness	8.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	45.0°
rear sweep	36.9°
plate length	×0.90
plate width	×1.20
deck gap	36.9 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×1.35
material	pla_plus

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate cb6dc8edc94d

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	88.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 16 via pivot

hypothesisParent ba61fc4b63fb (6.286) was solid but not leading; this pivot bets that narrowing the plate and tightening the deck gap trims mass for a free efficiency gain.

methodPlate width cut to 0.85x from 1.00x, deck gap tightened to 22.8mm from 26.0mm, rear sweep opened slightly, plate length trimmed marginally.

resultInvalid — the plate web thinned to 1.45mm against a 1.90mm stock minimum. Shrinking plate width while also tightening deck gap squeezed the load path below the structural floor. Lesson: plate width and deck gap can't both shrink together without also increasing plate thickness to compensate.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.29
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.4°
rear sweep	37.1°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×0.85
deck gap	22.8 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 3359f647701d

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	70.4 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 16 via pivot

hypothesisParent 1704aea48de9 (6.274) was near the frontier; this pivot bets that switching toward the lighter pa12_cf material could shave weight even with a slightly wider plate.

methodMaterial shifted toward pa12_cf, plate width increased to 1.09x, battery wedge added at 1.4°, plate length trimmed slightly.

resultInvalid — resulting plates came out at 1.4mm, below the 1.6mm minimum pa12_cf requires. The plate-thickness multiplier that was fine for cf_plate isn't enough once material switches to a weaker plastic. Lesson: material swaps to pa12_cf need a compensating plate-thickness bump, not just a width change.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.32
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	39.3°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.09
deck gap	26.5 mm
battery wedge	1.4°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate f8c9ae899625

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	104.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 16 via pivot

hypothesisSame parent as b3aaaeaeec58; this pivot goes further, betting that a much fatter arm waist buys enough stiffness margin to allow a more aggressive rear-sweep shape.

methodArm waist thickened to 0.78x from 0.55x, rear sweep swept back hard to 45.2° from 38.0°, front sweep pulled forward to 31.4°, plate length trimmed slightly.

resultInvalid — the arm tongue's bolt holes ended up missing the main plate entirely. Stacking a big waist change with a large sweep swing moved the arm-to-plate mounting geometry out of alignment. Lesson: sweep and waist changes need to be tested independently before combining, since together they can break the bolt pattern.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.78
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.4°
rear sweep	45.2°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	24.6 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 700786179886

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	73.2 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 16 via mutation

hypothesisSame champion parent as the two deck-gap pivots; this mutation randomly probes a wider, more sharply swept plate with a beefier material near the champion's structural envelope.

methodPlate width increased to 1.07x, rear sweep opened to 40.2° from 36.2°, battery wedge added at 1.9°, arm thickness bumped to 4.3mm, with material shifting toward pa12_cf.

resultInvalid — same failure mode as 3359f647701d: resulting plates measured 1.4mm against pa12_cf's 1.6mm minimum. A random mutation landed in the same material/thickness trap independently, reinforcing that pa12_cf pivots need a thickness floor the current gene ranges aren't respecting. Worth flagging pa12_cf moves to auto-bump plate thickness so this stops recurring.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.2°
rear sweep	40.2°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.07
deck gap	26.1 mm
battery wedge	1.9°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate c84184dd7731

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	89.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 16 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing 210243eee823 (6.284) with bb51c78c03f1 (6.525) bets that taking the better parent's tighter dimensions while pulling sweep back could combine their strengths.

methodFront sweep pulled back to 45.8° from 48.7°, deck gap tightened to 21.0mm from 23.2mm, arm width and length trimmed marginally.

resultInvalid — the tightened deck gap left no room for the FC/ESC stack. Crossover recombination pulled the gap below the avionics clearance floor even though neither parent's change looked extreme individually. Lesson: deck gap needs a hard lower bound enforced during crossover, not just mutation/pivot.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.25
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	45.8°
rear sweep	35.6°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	21.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate cadb6dac34da✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (petg)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	122.6 g
material	petg
born	generation 16 via designer

hypothesisA designer probe testing whether petg — cheaper and more forgiving than cf_plate — could work if arms are beefed up enough to compensate for its lower stiffness.

methodHand-set with thick 6.5mm arms, 0.80x waist, and full-thickness (1.00x) plates, built entirely in petg instead of cf_plate.

resultInvalid — arm tip deflection exceeded limits even with the thickened geometry. This confirms petg's modulus is too low for this arm envelope regardless of how much material is added; matching cf_plate's stiffness would require disproportionate thickness that likely costs more in weight than switching material saves. Lesson: petg is probably not viable for this frame's arm design without a fundamentally different arm profile — worth deprioritizing further petg attempts.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.25
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.80
arm thickness	6.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	28.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	petg

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 210243eee823

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.284 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.7% better
scenario mean	3.874 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.819 Wh/km
frame mass	90.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 15 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two solid ~6.3 performers on the bet that blending their front-sweep and arm-length traits could land closer to the frontier.

methodNarrowed the arm width, shortened arm length slightly, and kept front sweep and deck gap close to the parents' values.

result6.284 — better than both parents (6.324 and 6.373) and very close to the 6.257 best-so-far, though it doesn't overtake it. This reinforces that a slimmer arm width (~0.77) is a consistently winning trait this generation. Worth combining this candidate's front sweep with the champion's arm waist/length to try to beat 6.257 outright.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.325	141.2	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.011	170.4	39.0°
crosswind	3.851	163.6	33.5°
gusty_light	3.702	157.3	32.6°
hot_thin	3.538	150.3	27.5°
storm	4.819	204.7	31.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.26
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	48.7°
rear sweep	35.7°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	23.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate ba61fc4b63fbnew best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.286 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.7% better
scenario mean	3.874 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.824 Wh/km
frame mass	92.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 11 via crossover

hypothesisThe reigning champion and the runner-up were both cf_plate designs sitting right at the current plateau; the bet was that blending their sweep, waist, and plate-thickness settings could shave a little more mass/drag without leaving the material family that was already working.

methodIncreased front-arm sweep by about 1.7 degrees, thinned the plate stock a bit further (from 0.75x to 0.70x of stock), let the arm waist taper a touch less aggressively, and nudged the material blend slightly while staying inside the cf_plate family.

resultFitness came in at 6.286, edging past both parents (6.291 and 6.308) to become a NEW WINNER at the moment it was evaluated. The thinner plates likely trimmed mass with no structural penalty, delivering small gains across every scenario. Worth testing next: push the plate-thickness multiplier even lower to find where the cf_plate margin actually breaks.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.310	140.6	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.013	170.5	39.2°
crosswind	3.866	164.2	33.7°
gusty_light	3.705	157.4	32.7°
hot_thin	3.529	149.9	27.5°
storm	4.824	204.9	31.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.59
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.5°
rear sweep	36.3°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate fb429755f2c9

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.309 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.4% better
scenario mean	3.890 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.839 Wh/km
frame mass	91.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 15 via crossover

hypothesisTwo mid-6.3 performers were crossed on the bet that a sharper front sweep could trim aero losses further.

methodIncreased front sweep to 52° from 48.6°, narrowed the arm slightly, and left plate width unchanged.

result6.309 — an improvement over both parents (6.324 and 6.379) but still behind the 6.257 best-so-far. Gains were spread evenly across scenarios, suggesting front sweep near 50° is a mild, broad-based aero win. Worth pushing front sweep further, toward 52-55°, combined with the champion's slim arm waist.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.335	141.7	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.037	171.5	39.3°
crosswind	3.864	164.2	33.7°
gusty_light	3.715	157.8	32.8°
hot_thin	3.548	150.7	27.6°
storm	4.839	205.6	32.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.28
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	52.0°
rear sweep	35.7°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	23.4 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d7ed8abf5d4a

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.311 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.4% better
scenario mean	3.888 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.845 Wh/km
frame mass	93.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 15 via crossover

hypothesisThis crosses the prior best-so-far parent (6.274) with itself, essentially a local mutation probe to see if nearby arm-width and rear-sweep tweaks can improve on it directly.

methodWidened the arm slightly and straightened the rear sweep a touch, both modest changes from the parent.

result6.311 — slightly worse than the parent it came from (6.274) and behind the new best-so-far of 6.257. The small arm-width increase likely added marginal mass without a stiffness payoff. Worth trying the opposite direction — narrowing arm width below the parent's value — since that pattern won elsewhere this generation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.313	140.8	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.036	171.4	39.3°
crosswind	3.881	164.9	33.9°
gusty_light	3.718	157.9	32.8°
hot_thin	3.536	150.2	27.6°
storm	4.845	205.8	32.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.31
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	38.4°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 7d6bb6555ba3

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.360 Wh/km
vs baseline	7.6% better
scenario mean	3.920 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.880 Wh/km
frame mass	97.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 15 via crossover

hypothesisTwo closely-matched strong parents (6.373 and 6.371) were crossed on the bet that recombining their traits could squeeze out an incremental gain.

methodShortened the plate about 5%, pulled the material blend fully back to pure carbon-fiber plate, and nudged the battery wedge up slightly.

result6.36 — better than both parents, but the generation's best-so-far had already moved to 6.257 (set by 54a73703249e), so this falls short. Storm remains the costliest scenario (4.88), suggesting these two parents were already near a local plateau. Worth crossing this line with the new champion's slimmer arm waist next.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.349	142.3	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.070	172.9	39.4°
crosswind	3.909	166.1	33.8°
gusty_light	3.745	159.1	32.8°
hot_thin	3.568	151.6	27.6°
storm	4.880	207.3	32.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	38.0°
plate length	×0.93
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	24.8 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 567629068d98

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.397 Wh/km
vs baseline	7.1% better
scenario mean	3.944 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.906 Wh/km
frame mass	99.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 15 via pivot

hypothesisThe fitter parent (6.324) was already near the front of the pack, so this pivot bets that lengthening the plate slightly while trimming arm length can free up a bit more efficiency.

methodLengthened the main plate about 7%, thickened the arm slightly to 4.3 mm, shortened arm length a touch, and added a small 0.7° battery wedge.

resultCame in at 6.397 — worse than its stronger parent (6.324) and short of the pre-generation best (6.274). Storm was the biggest drag (4.91 Wh/km), suggesting the thicker arm added mass without buying enough stiffness back. Worth retrying the plate-length change alone, without the arm thickness bump.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.380	143.6	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.089	173.7	39.3°
crosswind	3.926	166.8	33.9°
gusty_light	3.767	160.0	32.8°
hot_thin	3.597	152.8	27.6°
storm	4.906	208.4	32.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.24
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	49.2°
rear sweep	35.5°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	22.8 mm
battery wedge	0.7°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate bb51c78c03f1

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.525 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.2% better
scenario mean	4.021 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.009 Wh/km
frame mass	105.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 15 via pivot

hypothesisDrawing on a much weaker parent's wider-arm traits, this pivot bets that a beefier arm waist and width could add stiffness margin for the storm scenario without costing too much elsewhere.

methodWidened the arm width and waist noticeably, eased the front sweep back to 46°, and stretched arm length slightly.

resultLanded at 6.525, worse than its stronger parent (6.324) and well off the pre-generation best. Storm again the weak point (5.01), pointing to the wider arm just adding drag and mass. Lesson: this generation's winners consistently keep arm waist near 0.55 — worth reverting to that instead of widening.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.434	145.9	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.201	178.5	40.2°
crosswind	3.993	169.6	34.4°
gusty_light	3.833	162.8	33.3°
hot_thin	3.655	155.3	27.9°
storm	5.009	212.8	35.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.32
arm width	×1.03
arm waist	×0.70
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	46.0°
rear sweep	35.1°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	23.5 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.74
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 470c4fea7616✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.574 Wh/km
vs baseline	4.5% better
scenario mean	4.051 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.045 Wh/km
frame mass	118.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 15 via designer

hypothesisA hand-designed seed from the Claude-designer role, exploring a fresh baseline independent of the evolutionary lineage — testing a slim arm paired with a thick plate and generous deck gap as a hand-picked structural hypothesis.

methodHand-set a slim, narrow-waisted arm at 4.0 mm thickness, but combined it with a large 40 mm deck gap and a heavily thickened plate (x1.50).

result6.574 — well behind the 6.257 best-so-far and behind the top evolved lineage. The oversized deck gap and thick plate likely added mass the evolved lines have learned to avoid, since winners cluster around 22-26 mm deck gap and ~x0.70 plate thickness. Worth rerunning this same arm seed with a tighter deck gap and thinner plate to align with what evolution has already found.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.461	147.0	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.191	178.1	38.8°
crosswind	4.042	171.7	33.7°
gusty_light	3.873	164.5	32.5°
hot_thin	3.692	156.9	27.5°
storm	5.045	214.3	31.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.20
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.50
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate a55c3afad400✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	7.773 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.9% worse
scenario mean	4.781 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.985 Wh/km
frame mass	199.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 15 via designer

hypothesisA hand-designed test of whether a much beefier, wider and thicker arm could buy enough structural margin to pay off across the adverse-weather battery.

methodHand-set a heavily widened arm (x1.40) with a thick waist (x1.30) and 7.0 mm thickness, on the same large 40 mm deck gap.

result7.773 — the worst result in this batch, far behind the 6.257 best-so-far and behind nearly every evolved candidate. The heavy arm drove up cost in every scenario, especially storm (5.98), confirming that the evolutionary trend toward slim arms (waist ~0.55, width ~0.75-0.85) is correct. This heavy-arm design line looks like a dead end worth abandoning.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	4.040	171.6	25.9°
cold_headwind	5.048	214.5	41.2°
crosswind	4.756	202.0	35.5°
gusty_light	4.542	193.0	34.0°
hot_thin	4.315	183.3	28.3°
storm	5.985	254.2	40.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×1.40
arm waist	×1.30
arm thickness	7.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 1d127f47417e

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	125.7 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 15 via pivot

hypothesisBoth parents were well off the pace (6.99 and 7.60), so this pivot bets on a more aggressive redesign: a straighter rear arm and a much tighter deck gap to shed frontal area and mass rather than making an incremental tweak.

methodStraightened the rear sweep, shifted the material blend toward a stiffer composite, thickened the plate about 17%, and shrank the deck gap from 28 mm down to 21.5 mm.

resultInvalid — the deck gap collapsed below what the FC/ESC stack needs to physically fit. This confirms deck gap has a hard floor somewhere above 21.5 mm regardless of how the plate is thickened. Worth testing the same sweep/material bet again but holding deck gap at 23 mm or more.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.10
arm width	×0.96
arm waist	×0.81
arm thickness	5.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	38.6°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.24
plate width	×1.23
deck gap	21.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.17
material	pet_cf

parents

candidate 22d0b8aa0446

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	83.0 g
material	petg
born	generation 15 via pivot

hypothesisOne parent was already invalid and the other weak (7.79), so this pivot gambles on a material swap toward a lighter plastic plus a narrower, longer plate to cut weight.

methodShifted the material blend heavily toward petg, narrowed the plate width about 6%, lengthened the arm, and thinned the plate slightly.

resultInvalid — the main plate web thinned to 0.84 mm against a 1.90 mm structural stock minimum. The narrower plate combined with the material and thickness change pushed the web past its floor. Next: keep plate thickness at or above the parent's x0.90 whenever pairing a lighter material with a narrower plate.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.8°
rear sweep	39.4°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.94
deck gap	27.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.84
material	petg

parents

candidate 2a4226f51df6

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	94.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 15 via pivot

hypothesisWith a strong parent at 6.379, this pivot bets that tilting the battery and opening the deck gap could improve cooling/CG balance enough to offset the extra structure needed.

methodAdded a 10.5° battery wedge, nearly doubled the deck gap increase to 33.4 mm, and shortened the plate about 15% to compensate.

resultInvalid — the mid plate web thinned to 1.12 mm against a 1.47 mm stock minimum. Shortening the plate to make room for the bigger deck gap took too much material from the mid section. Lesson: large deck-gap increases need plate thickness compensation, not plate-length reduction. Worth retrying the wedge/gap idea while holding plate length near the parent's value.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	39.6°
rear sweep	39.6°
plate length	×0.85
plate width	×1.13
deck gap	33.4 mm
battery wedge	10.5°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 7b4d6d97d3a2

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	92.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 15 via pivot

hypothesisStrong parent at 6.371, so this pivot bets that a wider arm paired with a straighter front sweep could add stiffness and cut aero losses simultaneously.

methodWidened the arm, reduced front sweep to 30°, nudged battery wedge up to 15°, and trimmed arm thickness slightly.

resultInvalid — the arm root tongues collide on the main plate. The wider arm combined with the reduced front sweep pushed the root geometry into interference. Teaches that arm width and front sweep are coupled near the mount; next time keep front sweep at 32° or above whenever pushing arm width past about 0.85.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.18
arm width	×0.86
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	25.1 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 4e66ffd73fcf✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (petg)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	126.6 g
material	petg
born	generation 15 via designer

hypothesisA hand-designed test of whether a cheaper, softer petg material could still hold up structurally if paired with a moderately thickened, wider arm.

methodHand-set a moderately widened arm at 6.5 mm thickness with a 42 mm deck gap, switched material to petg, and thinned the plate to x0.85.

resultInvalid — arm tip deflection exceeded limits under petg. The thicker 6.5 mm arm wasn't enough to compensate for petg's lower stiffness at this length and waist. Teaches that petg alone can't substitute for a stiffer composite at these arm proportions; worth retrying this exact geometry with cf_plate material instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×1.00
arm waist	×0.90
arm thickness	6.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	42.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	petg

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 2bd9dc0e44f5

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.324 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.2% better
scenario mean	3.899 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.851 Wh/km
frame mass	92.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 14 via pivot

hypothesisWith the reigning best-so-far as one parent, this pivot explores whether a much sharper front sweep and tighter deck gap can trade a little arm mass for better aerodynamic balance across the weather scenarios.

methodSwept the front arms much further forward, pulled the rear sweep back slightly, narrowed the arms, and tightened the deck gap.

resultValid at 6.324 Wh/km — clearly better than its weaker parent (7.127) but slightly behind the 6.274 best-so-far parent, so no new record. The aggressive front-sweep swing likely added drag/handling penalty in crosswind and storm that offset any calm-air gain. Next: try a smaller, more incremental front-sweep nudge from the 6.274 baseline rather than a ~17° jump.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.340	141.9	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.049	172.0	39.3°
crosswind	3.873	164.5	33.8°
gusty_light	3.723	158.2	32.9°
hot_thin	3.555	151.0	27.7°
storm	4.851	206.1	33.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.28
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	48.6°
rear sweep	35.7°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	23.4 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate e8b475371bd4✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.371 Wh/km
vs baseline	7.5% better
scenario mean	3.928 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.887 Wh/km
frame mass	94.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 14 via designer

hypothesisA designer fresh build testing whether an aggressive battery-wedge tilt (shifting CG) could unlock efficiency the evolved population hasn't explored, on otherwise lean evolved-like proportions.

methodFresh design with lean arm and plate proportions close to top evolved frames, but with a much steeper battery wedge tilt than any current-generation candidate.

resultValid at 6.371 Wh/km — respectable and close to the evolved pack's mid-6.3s cluster, though still behind the 6.274 best-so-far. The steep battery tilt didn't hurt as much as expected, suggesting CG shift is a relatively low-cost gene the population hasn't explored much. Next: cross this battery-wedge idea onto the actual best-so-far frame to see if it stacks additively.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.355	142.5	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.079	173.3	39.2°
crosswind	3.920	166.5	34.0°
gusty_light	3.753	159.4	32.8°
hot_thin	3.573	151.8	27.7°
storm	4.887	207.6	32.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.20
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	25.0 mm
battery wedge	14.0°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 7d84b9157ec6

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.373 Wh/km
vs baseline	7.5% better
scenario mean	3.928 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.890 Wh/km
frame mass	98.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 14 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two closely-matched competitive frames tests whether nudging their front sweep angle can push performance past both.

methodThe only real change is a steeper front sweep angle; the rest of the genome stays close to the shared parent values.

resultValid at 6.373 Wh/km, essentially matching but not beating either parent (6.37/6.35) — a near-neutral single-gene change. Suggests front sweep alone, in this narrow range, isn't the lever separating top performers. Next: hold front sweep fixed at the better parent's value and vary a different single gene, e.g. plate thickness, to find a more sensitive lever.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.357	142.6	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.077	173.2	39.3°
crosswind	3.915	166.3	33.9°
gusty_light	3.753	159.4	32.8°
hot_thin	3.577	151.9	27.6°
storm	4.890	207.7	32.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.3°
rear sweep	38.0°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	24.8 mm
battery wedge	0.6°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate f06711515158

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.379 Wh/km
vs baseline	7.4% better
scenario mean	3.931 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.896 Wh/km
frame mass	98.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 14 via crossover

hypothesisA self-crossover of a solid mid-pack frame explores nearby mutations in plate proportions and arm waist to see if small perturbations can beat the parent outright.

methodWidened and lengthened the plate slightly, loosened the arm waist a touch, and thickened the arm marginally.

resultValid at 6.379 Wh/km, slightly worse than the 6.34 parent — the small plate/waist perturbations added marginal weight without a matching gain. This parent seems to sit at a local optimum where small moves in any direction cost efficiency. Next: try a self-cross that shrinks, rather than grows, plate width to test the opposite direction.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.358	142.7	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.084	173.5	39.2°
crosswind	3.915	166.3	33.8°
gusty_light	3.755	159.5	32.8°
hot_thin	3.579	152.0	27.6°
storm	4.896	208.0	32.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.31
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	39.8°
rear sweep	39.6°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×1.13
deck gap	22.6 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 415bf8bfe69b

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.395 Wh/km
vs baseline	7.1% better
scenario mean	3.940 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.909 Wh/km
frame mass	99.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 14 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing a competitive frame with the reigning best-so-far bets that blending their plate proportions and material tweak could combine the best-so-far's efficiency with the other parent's structural margin.

methodShifted the material parameter slightly within the carbon-plate family, trimmed the plate length a bit, and loosened the arm waist slightly.

resultValid at 6.395 Wh/km, worse than both parents (6.38 and 6.274) — the blend landed structurally in between but lost efficiency in every scenario relative to the best-so-far. Simple gene-averaging isn't finding a better point here. Next: try crossing with the plate length locked to the best-so-far's value and vary only the material parameter.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.358	142.7	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.097	174.1	39.4°
crosswind	3.931	167.0	34.1°
gusty_light	3.765	159.9	32.9°
hot_thin	3.582	152.2	27.7°
storm	4.909	208.6	33.3°

gene	value
arm length	×1.28
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.78
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.4°
rear sweep	36.3°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	31.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.74
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate bd01e3ab19cf

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.468 Wh/km
vs baseline	6.1% better
scenario mean	3.985 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.967 Wh/km
frame mass	107.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 14 via pivot

hypothesisStarting from the current best-so-far, this pivot tests whether a stiffer, longer arm and thicker plate can extend its edge further into storm conditions.

methodWidened the arms noticeably, lengthened them slightly, thickened the plate, and nudged the material parameter within the carbon-plate family.

resultValid at 6.468 Wh/km, clearly worse than the 6.274 best-so-far parent — the extra arm and plate mass outweighed any storm-scenario robustness gain. Reinforces that the best-so-far is already near the weight/stiffness sweet spot and further beefing up loses more than it gains. Next: try thickening only the plate, not the arm width, to isolate which change costs the most.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.393	144.1	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.146	176.2	39.7°
crosswind	3.976	168.9	34.2°
gusty_light	3.806	161.7	33.0°
hot_thin	3.620	153.8	27.7°
storm	4.967	211.0	33.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×1.02
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	39.2°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.6 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.90
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d418422a216b

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.478 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.9% better
scenario mean	3.990 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.976 Wh/km
frame mass	105.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 14 via pivot

hypothesisBets that beefing up arm width and thickness on a mid-pack frame would improve storm/crosswind stiffness enough to offset the added mass.

methodWidened the arms back toward stock, thickened them slightly, eased the front sweep, and opened the deck gap marginally.

resultValid at 6.478 Wh/km, worse than both the 6.333 parent and the 6.274 best-so-far — the added arm bulk cost more across every scenario than the stiffness bought back. Confirms this frame lineage is weight-limited, not stiffness-limited. Next: revert the width/thickness increase and test the sweep/deck-gap change alone.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.391	144.1	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.170	177.2	39.9°
crosswind	3.979	169.0	34.4°
gusty_light	3.808	161.8	33.2°
hot_thin	3.618	153.7	27.8°
storm	4.976	211.4	34.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×1.02
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.6°
rear sweep	37.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.3 mm
battery wedge	1.7°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 03a2ffd572b3✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.991 Wh/km
vs baseline	1.5% worse
scenario mean	4.304 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.374 Wh/km
frame mass	143.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 14 via designer

hypothesisA Claude-designer fresh build testing a bulkier, higher-stiffness durability-first frame, wagering that beefier arms and plates pay off in storm robustness even at a mass penalty.

methodFresh design with notably longer/thicker arms, a wide/long plate, thick plate walls, and a pronounced rear sweep — heavier and stiffer across the board than typical evolved frames.

resultValid but weak at 6.991 Wh/km, well behind the 6.274 best-so-far and every other candidate this generation — the mass penalty from oversizing everything at once overwhelmed any robustness gain, with storm the worst score of the batch. Confirms the evolved population's lean frames already sit closer to the efficient edge than a designer's build-it-strong heuristic. Next: have the designer start from an evolved parent's proportions and dial up only one dimension, e.g. plate thickness, instead of a from-scratch bulky build.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.649	155.0	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.503	191.3	40.2°
crosswind	4.298	182.6	34.8°
gusty_light	4.105	174.4	33.3°
hot_thin	3.897	165.5	27.9°
storm	5.374	228.3	35.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.10
arm width	×0.95
arm waist	×0.80
arm thickness	5.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	40.0°
rear sweep	48.0°
plate length	×1.24
plate width	×1.24
deck gap	28.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 2f82e3339abb

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	95.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 14 via pivot

hypothesisff46e60afeaa was a solid mid-pack frame; this pivot bets that shaving more mass from the plate (shorter, thinner, narrower arms) can push efficiency further before structural limits bite.

methodShortened the main plate further, narrowed the arms slightly, thinned the plate more, and eased the front sweep angle a touch.

resultInvalid — the plate web dropped to 1.11mm against a 1.47mm stock minimum, so it failed the structural check before it could fly. Stacking three separate weight-cuts (shorter plate, thinner plate, narrower arm) in the same direction at once was too aggressive. Next: try only one of these cuts at a time to find where the wall-thickness floor actually sits.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.88
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.4°
rear sweep	37.6°
plate length	×0.85
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	24.9 mm
battery wedge	1.7°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a2a30a063191

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.29 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	89.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 14 via pivot

hypothesisTries to recover a strong parent's efficiency by opening the deck gap for better airflow while trimming plate size to shed weight.

methodWidened the deck gap substantially, shrank the plate width and length, and pulled the arm length in slightly.

resultInvalid — the main plate web thinned to 1.29mm against a 1.90mm stock minimum, so shrinking both plate dimensions at once broke the structural floor, the same failure mode as other plate-shrink pivots this generation. Next: keep plate dimensions near parent levels and test the deck-gap widening in isolation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.24
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.65
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	39.0°
rear sweep	39.7°
plate length	×0.85
plate width	×0.97
deck gap	29.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 47e4b91aecdb

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	116.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 14 via pivot

hypothesisBets that a much larger deck gap plus thicker arms could improve stability in gusty/storm conditions on a frame whose parent already sat competitively.

methodNearly doubled the deck gap, tightened the arm waist, lengthened the plate, and thickened the arms substantially.

resultInvalid — the arm root tongues now collide on the main plate, a geometric interference from combining a much thicker arm with a tighter waist. Shows the arm-thickness and waist genes aren't independent — pushing one against print-space limits requires easing the other. Next: retest the deck-gap/plate-length change alone, keeping arm thickness and waist at parent values.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	5.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.0°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	39.6 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.81
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 8353dbb95b00

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	115.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 14 via pivot

hypothesisBets that a wider plate and steeper battery wedge (shifting CG) could improve handling enough to justify a much thicker arm waist for durability.

methodMore than doubled the arm waist thickness, widened the plate, tripled the battery tilt angle, and tightened the deck gap substantially.

resultInvalid — the deck gap shrank too far for the FC/ESC stack to fit. Squeezing the deck gap while also growing the waist and plate left no room for electronics clearance. Next: keep the deck gap near parent levels while testing the battery-wedge and waist changes separately.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×1.22
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	37.4°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.12
deck gap	20.1 mm
battery wedge	5.8°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 091ed3266995

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pla_plus (1.5 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	77.7 g
material	pla_plus
born	generation 14 via immigrant

hypothesisA random immigrant testing PLA+ as a lighter/cheaper alternative material family, probing whether the population's carbon-plate dominance is a local optimum rather than a global one.

methodFresh random genome — smaller arms, wide/long plate, wide deck gap, built in PLA+ instead of carbon plate.

resultInvalid — plates measured 1.5mm against PLA+'s 1.6mm minimum wall requirement, since PLA+ is weaker than carbon plate and needs thicker walls for the same geometry. Useful negative data point: plate-thickness settings here were tuned for cf_plate's stock minimums, not PLA+'s stricter ones. Next: rerun similar immigrants but scale plate thickness up specifically for PLA+'s minimum before evaluating fitness.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.82
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.61
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	39.9°
rear sweep	45.2°
plate length	×1.29
plate width	×1.07
deck gap	37.5 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	pla_plus

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 19c8d0829c1b✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pet_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	88.2 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 14 via designer

hypothesisA designer fresh build testing PET-CF as a tougher, more impact-resistant alternative to carbon plate, on an otherwise lean, evolved-like arm geometry.

methodFresh design with long, narrow, tightly-waisted arms similar to top evolved frames, but built from PET-CF instead of carbon plate.

resultInvalid — arm tip deflection exceeded the limit for PET-CF, since its stiffness is lower than carbon plate and this arm geometry was sized for cf_plate's rigidity, not PET-CF's flex. Shows material swaps can't reuse cf_plate arm proportions directly. Next: retest PET-CF with a shorter or wider arm profile sized for its lower modulus.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	39.3°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.90
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate cc237e7244c5

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.318 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.2% better
scenario mean	3.894 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.848 Wh/km
frame mass	93.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 13 via crossover

hypothesisWith both parents clustered near best-so-far, the bet was that blending a wider front sweep with a modestly tighter deck gap could nudge past the plateau.

methodFront sweep increased ~3.8°, deck gap trimmed by 1.2 mm, plate width held at parent value.

resultValid at 6.318, the best result of this generation's candidates and very close to best-so-far (6.274) without quite beating it; storm remains the heaviest scenario (4.85) but the frame is otherwise well balanced. Worth testing: trim deck gap a bit further toward 23-24 mm while holding front sweep fixed to see if it closes the remaining gap.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.326	141.3	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.038	171.6	39.4°
crosswind	3.884	165.0	33.9°
gusty_light	3.722	158.1	32.8°
hot_thin	3.546	150.6	27.6°
storm	4.848	206.0	32.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.2°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	24.8 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate ff46e60afeaa

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.333 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.0% better
scenario mean	3.903 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.860 Wh/km
frame mass	93.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 13 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the two close parents, the bet was that borrowing the leaner arm/plate thickness from one while adding a touch more front sweep would blend their strengths.

methodArms thinned back to 4.0 mm, plate thinned slightly, front sweep increased ~1.8°, material blend lightened slightly.

resultValid at 6.333, beating both parents individually but still short of best-so-far (6.274); the leaner structure helped but the extra front sweep may have cost some of that gain. Worth testing: the same thinner arm/plate combo without the front sweep bump.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.331	141.5	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.057	172.4	39.3°
crosswind	3.891	165.3	34.0°
gusty_light	3.729	158.4	32.9°
hot_thin	3.550	150.8	27.7°
storm	4.860	206.5	33.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.5°
rear sweep	37.4°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	1.8°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate ad77afd2152e

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.340 Wh/km
vs baseline	7.9% better
scenario mean	3.906 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.867 Wh/km
frame mass	94.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 13 via pivot

hypothesisBuilt from the current best-so-far, this candidate bet that a wider front sweep and a stiffer, thicker-waisted arm combined with a trimmed deck gap could push past the plateau.

methodFront sweep opened by ~8°, plate widened 6%, arm waist thickened, deck gap trimmed by ~3 mm.

resultValid but slightly worse than its best-so-far parent (6.34 vs 6.274), dragged down mainly by storm (4.87); the added frontal area from the wider sweep and plate likely outweighed the deck-gap savings. Worth testing: the deck-gap trim in isolation on the best-so-far genome, without the sweep/waist changes.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.335	141.7	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.065	172.7	39.2°
crosswind	3.885	165.1	33.8°
gusty_light	3.731	158.5	32.8°
hot_thin	3.554	151.0	27.6°
storm	4.867	206.8	32.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.31
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.64
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	39.8°
rear sweep	39.6°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	23.1 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 45484fc05b8f

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.350 Wh/km
vs baseline	7.8% better
scenario mean	3.912 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.875 Wh/km
frame mass	96.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 13 via pivot

hypothesisThe parent was solid but not leading, so the bet was a heavier material blend plus a small battery wedge could rebalance CG and edge out a gain.

methodFront sweep pulled back ~1.3°, material blend shifted heavier, small 0.7° battery wedge added, arm waist nudged.

resultValid at 6.35, essentially flat versus the 6.311 parent and short of best-so-far; the heavier material blend likely added mass without an aero payoff. Worth testing: keep the battery wedge but revert the material blend back toward the lighter setting to isolate its contribution.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.337	141.8	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.065	172.7	39.3°
crosswind	3.900	165.7	33.9°
gusty_light	3.739	158.9	32.8°
hot_thin	3.559	151.2	27.6°
storm	4.875	207.1	32.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.71
arm thickness	4.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.2°
rear sweep	36.2°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	0.7°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b62c94c67395

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.370 Wh/km
vs baseline	7.5% better
scenario mean	3.925 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.891 Wh/km
frame mass	98.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 13 via pivot

hypothesisFrom the same best-so-far parent, the bet here was that slightly longer, thicker arms would buy structural margin cheaply while a modest deck-gap trim clawed back some efficiency.

methodArm length extended ~3%, arm thickness increased 0.3 mm, deck gap cut by 1.3 mm, rear sweep eased back slightly.

resultValid at 6.37, worse than both the best-so-far parent and its sibling ad77afd2152e; the extra arm length/thickness added mass that the small deck-gap saving couldn't offset, with storm again the weak point (4.89). Worth testing: the arm-thickening alone, without the length increase, to see if it's a net loss on its own.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.342	142.0	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.083	173.5	39.3°
crosswind	3.917	166.4	33.9°
gusty_light	3.751	159.3	32.8°
hot_thin	3.565	151.5	27.7°
storm	4.891	207.8	32.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	38.0°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	24.7 mm
battery wedge	0.6°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 1989cce8f069

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.380 Wh/km
vs baseline	7.3% better
scenario mean	3.931 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.898 Wh/km
frame mass	99.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 13 via pivot

hypothesisThis candidate tested the opposite direction from the deck-gap-tightening attempts: betting that a wider gap plus the lightest material and thicker arm waist would still net a win through mass savings.

methodDeck gap widened by 5 mm, arm waist thickened, material switched to the lightest blend, plate shortened slightly.

resultValid but the weakest successful pivot this generation at 6.38; widening the deck gap clearly added drag/mass the lighter material couldn't compensate for, confirming the gap should move down, not up, from 26 mm. Worth testing: keep the pure-light material choice but pair it with a deck-gap trim instead of an expansion.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.353	142.4	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.085	173.6	39.4°
crosswind	3.919	166.5	34.1°
gusty_light	3.756	159.6	32.9°
hot_thin	3.576	151.9	27.7°
storm	4.898	208.1	33.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.28
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.80
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.4°
rear sweep	36.3°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	31.1 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.74
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 89860fd49516

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.512 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.4% better
scenario mean	4.011 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.002 Wh/km
frame mass	105.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 13 via crossover

hypothesisThe bet was that a longer plate combined with more rear sweep and battery wedge would improve stability enough to offset the added structure.

methodPlate lengthened 8%, rear sweep increased 3°, battery wedge roughly doubled, deck gap trimmed slightly.

resultValid but worst of this generation's crossovers at 6.512, worse than both parents; storm (5.0) shows the added mass and wedge hurt worst-case performance most. Worth testing: the rear sweep/wedge combo without the plate lengthening to isolate which change is the real culprit.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.409	144.8	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.193	178.1	40.2°
crosswind	4.000	169.9	34.6°
gusty_light	3.827	162.6	33.3°
hot_thin	3.636	154.5	27.9°
storm	5.002	212.5	35.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×1.01
arm waist	×0.68
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.9°
rear sweep	39.0°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	24.9 mm
battery wedge	3.1°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 3844ac93fc4c✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.757 Wh/km
vs baseline	1.9% better
scenario mean	4.162 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.189 Wh/km
frame mass	128.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 13 via designer

hypothesisThe bet was that a bulkier, more swept airframe with a larger plate footprint might trade some efficiency for wind stability and still come out ahead.

methodHand-designed genome: longer/thicker arms, wider front and rear sweep angles, notably larger plate length and width, wider deck gap.

resultValid at 6.757, the best of this generation's three designer seeds but still far off best-so-far; the enlarged plate and wide sweep angles added mass and frontal area beyond what any stability gain offset, with storm the weakest scenario (5.19). Worth testing: shrink the plate footprint back toward stock while keeping the wider sweep angles, to see if sweep alone contributes value.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.540	150.4	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.338	184.3	39.5°
crosswind	4.154	176.5	34.3°
gusty_light	3.973	168.8	33.0°
hot_thin	3.777	160.5	27.8°
storm	5.189	220.4	33.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.65
arm thickness	5.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	38.0°
rear sweep	44.0°
plate length	×1.10
plate width	×1.15
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate e28f02892326✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.840 Wh/km
vs baseline	0.7% better
scenario mean	4.217 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.247 Wh/km
frame mass	132.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 13 via designer

hypothesisA fresh designer seed exploring a stockier, untapered arm baseline with a generous deck gap and steep battery wedge, testing whether a conservative structural design could compete outside the pivot/crossover lineage.

methodHand-designed genome: full-length untapered arms at 5.5 mm thickness, 42 mm deck gap, 14° battery wedge, thick plate.

resultValid at 6.84, well behind best-so-far and the weakest of this generation's three designer seeds; the oversized deck gap and steep wedge likely added drag and mass across every scenario, including storm (5.25). Worth testing: a designer seed with deck gap near 26 mm and battery wedge near 0-2° to isolate whether the arm geometry alone can compete.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.602	153.0	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.381	186.1	39.1°
crosswind	4.210	178.8	34.1°
gusty_light	4.025	171.0	32.8°
hot_thin	3.836	162.9	27.7°
storm	5.247	222.9	32.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.75
arm thickness	5.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	42.0 mm
battery wedge	14.0°
plate thickness	×1.20
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 197c23808897✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	7.025 Wh/km
vs baseline	2.0% worse
scenario mean	4.326 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.399 Wh/km
frame mass	148.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 13 via designer

hypothesisThis designer seed bet that over-building the arms — thick and barely tapered — would provide structural margin without an aero penalty.

methodHand-designed genome: longer, thicker (6.0 mm) arms with minimal waist taper, near-stock deck gap, zero battery wedge, thinner plate.

resultValid but the worst candidate this generation at 7.025, far off best-so-far, with every scenario elevated (storm 5.4). This teaches that arm thickness beyond ~4-4.5 mm with minimal waist taper is a clear loss under this fitness metric. Worth testing: a designer seed with thinner, more tapered arms closer to what the pivot lineage has converged on (roughly 4.0 mm, 0.55-0.65 waist).

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.673	156.0	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.518	192.0	40.1°
crosswind	4.319	183.5	34.6°
gusty_light	4.125	175.3	33.3°
hot_thin	3.921	166.6	27.9°
storm	5.399	229.4	35.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.20
arm width	×1.00
arm waist	×0.90
arm thickness	6.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	38.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	28.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate f580c8168a5f

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	105.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 13 via pivot

hypothesisThe near-best parent suggested there was still headroom in stiffening the plate and tightening the electronics deck, so this candidate bet on a thicker plate plus a leaner deck stack to shave mass and drag.

methodPlate thickness increased substantially, deck gap cut by 6 mm, a 2° battery wedge added, and the material blend lightened.

resultInvalid: the tightened deck gap left no room for the FC/ESC stack. This confirms 26 mm is close to the real floor and that thickening the plate eats into the same clearance budget. Worth testing: trim deck gap alone by 1-2 mm without touching plate thickness to find the true minimum.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.6°
rear sweep	36.3°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	20.0 mm
battery wedge	2.0°
plate thickness	×1.18
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 75753b64d8cc

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	104.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 13 via pivot

hypothesisWith the stronger parent still trailing best-so-far, the bet was that a tighter deck stack combined with more battery wedge could recover some efficiency.

methodDeck gap cut by ~3.7 mm, battery wedge nearly doubled, plate widened slightly and thinned slightly.

resultInvalid for the same reason as its sibling: FC/ESC stack collision. Two independent failures around 20-23 mm strongly suggest the stack clearance floor sits close to 24-25 mm. Worth testing: deck gap at 24-25 mm alone, holding wedge and plate width at parent values, to bracket the floor precisely.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.8°
rear sweep	38.7°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	22.3 mm
battery wedge	3.2°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 96f27774bf9c

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	93.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 13 via pivot

hypothesisStarting from the strong parent, the bet was that a much larger rear sweep would improve crosswind/yaw balance enough to justify the structural risk.

methodRear sweep increased by 11°, plate and arms widened slightly, material blend shifted.

resultInvalid: the large rear sweep moved the arm tongues off the plate's bolt pattern. This shows sweep changes are bounded by the fixed bolt layout, likely capping rear sweep well below 47° for this arm length. Worth testing: rear sweep increases in smaller ~5° steps to find the real ceiling before bolts miss.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.5°
rear sweep	47.3°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	27.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 8c3f49668738

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	93.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 13 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two equally-scored parents, the bet was that narrowing the plate while opening the deck gap slightly could cut mass without compromising structure.

methodPlate narrowed 6%, deck gap opened 2.2 mm, arm waist thinned slightly.

resultInvalid: the narrower plate's web thickness fell below the structural minimum (0.85 mm vs 1.90 mm stock). This teaches that plate width and thickness are coupled — narrowing width without compensating thickness risks failing the web-thickness floor. Worth testing: narrow the plate width but pair it with a plate-thickness increase to keep the web above 1.90 mm.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.68
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.4°
rear sweep	36.3°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×0.94
deck gap	28.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b0b7ac5673d3

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.308 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.4% better
scenario mean	3.887 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.841 Wh/km
frame mass	93.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 12 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the current best-so-far (1704aea48de9, 6.274) with the near-best ba61fc4b63fb (6.286) aimed to combine the champion's efficiency with a thicker plate for extra structural margin.

methodThickened the plate (x0.70→x0.78), tightened the arm waist slightly (x0.59→x0.55), and marginally lengthened the arms (x1.30→x1.31).

result6.308, close to but not surpassing either parent - not a new best-so-far. The plate thickening added mass that offset the tighter waist's savings, confirming the champion's thinner x0.70 plate is closer to optimal. Worth testing next: repeat this cross with plate thickness left untouched at x0.70 to isolate the waist/length effect alone.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.319	141.0	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.030	171.2	39.0°
crosswind	3.878	164.7	33.7°
gusty_light	3.717	157.9	32.6°
hot_thin	3.540	150.4	27.5°
storm	4.841	205.7	31.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.31
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.5°
rear sweep	36.3°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.78
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate ddf19b536a16✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.311 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.4% better
scenario mean	3.888 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.845 Wh/km
frame mass	94.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 12 via designer

hypothesisDesigner bet on pushing arm length further than the elite lineage's ~x1.30 norm (to x1.35) while keeping battery wedge at 0° and the thin-plate recipe intact, testing whether the arm-length trend keeps paying off.

methodExtended arm length to x1.35, kept arm width/waist/thickness at the proven thin values, enlarged the plate slightly (x1.00/x1.03), and held battery wedge at 0°.

result6.311, competitive but still short of the 6.274 best-so-far - not a new winner, and close to several crossover results in the same 6.30-6.35 band, suggesting x1.35 arm length sits near a plateau rather than an improvement. Worth testing next: keep arm length at x1.35 but shrink plate length/width back toward x0.97 to shed the extra plate mass added here.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.313	140.8	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.039	171.6	39.2°
crosswind	3.880	164.8	33.9°
gusty_light	3.717	157.9	32.8°
hot_thin	3.535	150.2	27.6°
storm	4.845	205.8	32.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.4°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 518308dd763e

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.311 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.4% better
scenario mean	3.889 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.843 Wh/km
frame mass	94.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 12 via crossover

hypothesisba61fc4b63fb sits close to best-so-far, so this self-pairing bet that thickening the arm waist while trimming arm length slightly could add robustness without losing efficiency.

methodThickened the arm waist from x0.59 to x0.70 and shortened arm length slightly from x1.30 to x1.27.

result6.311, a step back from the 6.286 parent - the added waist material outweighed the modest length savings. Confirms the parent's thinner waist was closer to optimal. Worth testing next: trim arm waist further below x0.59 while holding length at x1.30 to see if the trend keeps improving.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.322	141.1	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.030	171.2	39.1°
crosswind	3.879	164.8	33.8°
gusty_light	3.718	157.9	32.7°
hot_thin	3.542	150.5	27.6°
storm	4.843	205.8	31.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.70
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.5°
rear sweep	36.3°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 17da73c894cb✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.333 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.0% better
scenario mean	3.902 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.861 Wh/km
frame mass	95.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 12 via designer

hypothesisDesigner bet on testing whether a substantially larger deck gap (36 mm vs the elite 26 mm) trades battery/deck clearance for an aerodynamic or structural benefit, while otherwise matching the elite arm recipe.

methodKept the elite thin-arm proportions (x1.30 length, x0.76 width, x0.55 waist) but widened the deck gap from the usual 26.0 mm to 36.0 mm, with the same enlarged plate as its sibling candidate.

result6.333, worse than its tighter-deck-gap sibling (ddf19b536a16 at 6.311) and short of the 6.274 best-so-far - confirms deck gap widening is a mass/drag penalty, consistent with candidate 1b84d46a56fc's finding. Worth testing next: stop exploring wider deck gaps and instead probe values below 26.0 mm to find the tight-clearance boundary.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.324	141.2	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.054	172.2	39.1°
crosswind	3.896	165.5	34.0°
gusty_light	3.730	158.5	32.8°
hot_thin	3.547	150.7	27.7°
storm	4.861	206.5	32.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.4°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	36.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 1b84d46a56fc

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.346 Wh/km
vs baseline	7.8% better
scenario mean	3.910 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.872 Wh/km
frame mass	95.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 12 via crossover

hypothesisParent ba61fc4b63fb sat near best-so-far at 6.286; crossing it with the heavier e0575966e577 (6.406) bet that blending their arm-width and deck-gap traits could combine strengths rather than dilute them.

methodWidened arm width from x0.75 to x0.86 and opened the deck gap from 26.0 mm to 28.4 mm, leaving plate length essentially unchanged.

resultLanded at 6.346, worse than either parent and well off the 6.274 best-so-far. The wider arm and larger deck gap added mass/drag across every scenario (storm rose to 4.87) without any offsetting gain. Worth testing next: pull the deck gap back toward 26 mm while keeping the parent's other genes, to isolate whether width or gap was the culprit.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.333	141.6	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.063	172.6	39.4°
crosswind	3.902	165.8	34.0°
gusty_light	3.737	158.8	32.8°
hot_thin	3.555	151.0	27.6°
storm	4.872	207.0	32.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.86
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.5°
rear sweep	36.3°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	28.4 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate af1499695456✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.355 Wh/km
vs baseline	7.7% better
scenario mean	3.918 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.875 Wh/km
frame mass	91.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 12 via designer

hypothesisDesigner bet that a much steeper battery wedge (12°) combined with an elevated rear sweep, layered onto the elite thin-arm/thin-plate recipe, could unlock a gain the mutation/crossover operators hadn't found.

methodKept the proven thin-arm proportions (x1.30 length, x0.76 width, x0.55 waist, x0.70 plate thickness) but raised rear sweep to 39.3° and pushed battery wedge to a steep 12.0°.

result6.355, worse than the 6.274 best-so-far and worse than near-identical crossovers using 0° wedge - the steep tilt looks like a net drag/mass penalty, echoing the same pattern seen in candidate 3007a946fb33. Storm rose to 4.88. Worth testing next: try battery wedge in smaller 2-4° increments rather than jumping straight to 12°, to find any beneficial range before ruling it out.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.342	142.0	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.079	173.3	39.3°
crosswind	3.909	166.0	34.0°
gusty_light	3.742	159.0	32.9°
hot_thin	3.559	151.2	27.7°
storm	4.875	207.1	33.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	39.3°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	12.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 3007a946fb33

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.458 Wh/km
vs baseline	6.2% better
scenario mean	3.979 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.959 Wh/km
frame mass	104.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 12 via crossover

hypothesisParent e0575966e577 carried a modest battery wedge that hadn't yet paid off; this cross bet that pairing further arm lengthening with a slightly reduced wedge angle might recover efficiency.

methodLengthened arms (x1.30→x1.35), widened them slightly (x0.75→x0.79), increased rear sweep (36.3°→37.4°), and nudged battery wedge down (1.9°→1.7°).

result6.458, worse than both parents and the 6.274 best-so-far - the extra arm length and width added mass without any gain, and storm rose to 4.96. Battery wedge continues to underperform across this generation's crosses. Worth testing next: drop battery wedge to 0° entirely on an otherwise strong parent to check if tilt is a net negative overall.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.387	143.9	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.143	176.0	39.4°
crosswind	3.972	168.8	34.1°
gusty_light	3.801	161.5	32.9°
hot_thin	3.613	153.5	27.7°
storm	4.959	210.7	33.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.7°
rear sweep	37.4°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	1.7°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 6a0308f66ca3

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.497 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.7% better
scenario mean	4.002 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.989 Wh/km
frame mass	104.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 12 via crossover

hypothesisWith both parents mid-pack (6.366, 6.291), this cross gambled that adding a battery wedge tilt on top of wider, longer arms might unlock an aerodynamic gain not yet seen in the elite lineage.

methodWidened arms substantially (x0.86→x1.01), lengthened them (x1.27→x1.35), and introduced a 1.5° battery wedge tilt.

result6.497, clearly worse than both parents and the 6.274 best-so-far. The combined mass from bulkier arms plus wedge tilt hurt every scenario, especially storm (4.99). Worth testing next: isolate the battery wedge alone on a proven thin-arm parent to see if tilt helps independent of arm bulk.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.405	144.6	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.183	177.7	40.2°
crosswind	3.987	169.4	34.5°
gusty_light	3.818	162.2	33.3°
hot_thin	3.630	154.2	27.9°
storm	4.989	212.0	35.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×1.01
arm waist	×0.68
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	26.2 mm
battery wedge	1.5°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate e5336935405c

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.771 Wh/km
vs baseline	1.7% better
scenario mean	4.173 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.196 Wh/km
frame mass	128.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 12 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents (6.533, 6.415) were already well off the elite pace; this cross explored a bulkier, wide-deck-gap region of the space, betting that extended arms and a steeper battery wedge might unlock gains.

methodSubstantially widened the deck gap (34.5 mm→41.3 mm), lengthened the arms (x1.19→x1.33), steepened the battery wedge (2.0°→5.4°), and widened the plate (x1.07→x1.13).

result6.771, the weakest valid candidate this generation and far off the 6.274 best-so-far - stacking a wider deck gap, longer arms, steeper wedge, and wider plate compounded mass/drag penalties across every scenario. This lineage is diverging further from the elite region. Worth testing next: retire this parent pair in favor of crosses seeded from the top-4 elite lineage.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.551	150.9	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.342	184.4	39.8°
crosswind	4.178	177.5	34.9°
gusty_light	3.982	169.2	33.1°
hot_thin	3.786	160.8	27.8°
storm	5.196	220.8	34.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.33
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.24
plate width	×1.13
deck gap	41.3 mm
battery wedge	5.4°
plate thickness	×1.10
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 65e6a5f0f3b8

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	7.423 Wh/km
vs baseline	7.8% worse
scenario mean	4.573 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.700 Wh/km
frame mass	176.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 12 via immigrant

hypothesisAn immigrant injects fresh diversity to counter convergence around the 6.27-6.4 elite band, exploring a bulkier, thicker-armed region of the design space unrelated to the current lineage.

methodFresh random genome: shorter but much wider/thicker arms (x0.94 length, x1.21 width, 6.6 mm thickness), a steep 44.2° front sweep, an enlarged plate (x1.06/x1.06), a wide 35.9 mm deck gap, a 3.2° battery wedge, and a thick x1.30 plate.

result7.423, the weakest candidate this generation and far off the 6.274 best-so-far - the over-built structure added mass and drag in every scenario, especially storm (5.70). This confirms the elite lineage's thin-arm, narrow-deck-gap direction is well-founded. Worth testing next: bias future immigrants toward lighter-weight starting genomes rather than uniform random draws.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.907	166.0	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.761	202.3	39.7°
crosswind	4.550	193.3	34.4°
gusty_light	4.356	185.1	33.2°
hot_thin	4.161	176.8	27.9°
storm	5.700	242.2	34.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.94
arm width	×1.21
arm waist	×1.03
arm thickness	6.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	44.2°
rear sweep	38.9°
plate length	×1.06
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	35.9 mm
battery wedge	3.2°
plate thickness	×1.30
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 81b319d910b1

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	94.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 12 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents were competitive (6.308 and 6.286), so this cross bet that combining longer arms with a reduced rear sweep and a thinner plate could shave off more mass.

methodReduced rear sweep from 36.0° to 34.0°, lengthened the arms slightly (x1.26→x1.30), and thinned the plate (x0.74→x0.70).

resultInvalid: the arm root tongues collided on the main plate. Pushing arm length up while tightening rear sweep closed the clearance margin at the root simultaneously. Worth testing next: lengthen the arms alone while holding rear sweep near 36° to preserve root clearance.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.86
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.9°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	26.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 4e477467edbf

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	94.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 12 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing with the reigning best-so-far (1704aea48de9, 6.274) aimed to inherit its efficiency while testing whether shorter arms and a tighter deck gap could shed more mass and drag.

methodShortened arms considerably (x1.26→x1.15), thickened the plate (x0.74→x0.86), and tightened the deck gap (26.2 mm→23.7 mm).

resultInvalid: the rotor came too close to the deck/battery. Shrinking arm length and deck gap together closed out the rotor clearance margin. Worth testing next: shorten the arms alone while keeping deck gap near 26 mm to find the clearance boundary safely.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×0.86
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.9°
rear sweep	35.3°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	23.7 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.86
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 422a660d16fa

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	90.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 12 via crossover

hypothesisBoth mid-pack parents (6.291, 6.366) suggested the general trend that thinner, narrower plates help, so this cross bet on pushing both plate width and thickness down together for more mass savings.

methodNarrowed plate width (x1.00→x0.95) and thinned plate thickness (x0.75→x0.70) simultaneously.

resultInvalid: the plate web dropped to 0.99 mm, under half the 1.90 mm stock minimum. Width and thickness reductions compound rather than being independently safe. Worth testing next: thin the plate alone while holding plate width at the parent's value to map the safe thickness floor.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	36.3°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×0.95
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 638bd2f1c787

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	84.7 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 12 via crossover

hypothesisBet on testing whether a switch to pa12_cf material paired with a thicker arm wall could permit a lighter overall structure, exploring beyond the cf_plate material that has dominated so far.

methodSwitched material toward pa12_cf, thickened the arm wall (4.0 mm→5.1 mm), and narrowed the arm width (x0.86→x0.78).

resultInvalid: plate thickness (inherited from cf_plate-tuned parents) fell to 1.4 mm, below pa12_cf's 1.6 mm minimum wall requirement. Material swaps need their own plate-thickness re-tuning, since pa12_cf needs thicker walls than cf_plate for equivalent strength. Worth testing next: if retrying pa12_cf, explicitly raise the plate thickness gene above 1.6 mm before combining with other changes.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.66
arm thickness	5.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	26.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 8d9fd4a01c9anew best when evaluated✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.291 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.7% better
scenario mean	3.876 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.828 Wh/km
frame mass	93.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 9 via designer

hypothesisHeadless-Claude design hypothesis (see designer_log.md).

methodGenome: arm length ×1.30, arm width ×0.76, arm waist ×0.55, arm thickness 4.0 mm.

resultAggregate 6.291 Wh/km. NEW BEST-SO-FAR at evaluation time. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.308	140.5	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.018	170.7	39.0°
crosswind	3.868	164.3	33.7°
gusty_light	3.707	157.5	32.6°
hot_thin	3.529	149.9	27.5°
storm	4.828	205.1	31.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	36.3°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 423a5b75b462

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.308 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.4% better
scenario mean	3.887 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.842 Wh/km
frame mass	94.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 10 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the near-champion 8d9fd4a01c9a (6.291) with mid-pack 12db578f6d9a (6.387) tests whether blending in a wider arm and thinner plate from the second parent can nudge the champion lineage even leaner.

methodWidened arm width from ×0.76 to ×0.86, shortened arm length slightly from ×1.30 to ×1.26, and trimmed plate width and thickness marginally.

resultFitness came in at 6.308, just shy of the 6.291 best-so-far and matching sibling a0a25432bc7e almost exactly. The wider arm didn't help enough to beat the champion's narrower profile, suggesting arm width near ×0.76 is closer to the local optimum than ×0.86. Next: try isolating just the arm-length trim without the width increase to see which change is actually helping.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.317	140.9	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.028	171.1	39.2°
crosswind	3.880	164.8	33.8°
gusty_light	3.717	157.9	32.7°
hot_thin	3.538	150.3	27.6°
storm	4.842	205.7	31.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.26
arm width	×0.86
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.9°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	26.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.74
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate dfc78b499744

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.366 Wh/km
vs baseline	7.6% better
scenario mean	3.922 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.888 Wh/km
frame mass	97.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 11 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the runner-up with a mid-tier design, betting that loosening the arm waist and shifting the material blend could combine the runner-up's efficient sweep with the other parent's structural margin.

methodLoosened the arm waist taper, nudged the material blend toward the boundary that elsewhere flips to pa12_cf (though it stayed cf_plate here), widened the plate slightly, and thinned the plate stock a touch.

resultFitness landed at 6.366, between its two parents (better than 6.427, worse than 6.308) and off the pace of the 6.274 leader. It picked up some of the runner-up's efficiency, but the looser arm waist likely added enough drag/mass to cancel most of the gain. Worth testing next: repeat the cross with arm waist held at the runner-up's tighter setting to isolate whether that half of the blend is the useful part.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.343	142.0	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.072	173.0	39.3°
crosswind	3.913	166.2	33.9°
gusty_light	3.749	159.3	32.8°
hot_thin	3.567	151.5	27.6°
storm	4.888	207.7	32.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.86
arm waist	×0.67
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	26.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate e0575966e577

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.406 Wh/km
vs baseline	7.0% better
scenario mean	3.948 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.916 Wh/km
frame mass	101.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 11 via crossover

hypothesisAlso crossing the champion with the runner-up, but this time betting on stiffness and stability -- adding a battery wedge tilt and thicker arms in hopes of buying robustness in the harder scenarios like storm and crosswind.

methodTilted the battery mount about 2 degrees, thickened the arms from 4.0mm to 4.6mm, bumped front sweep slightly, and trimmed arm width fractionally.

resultFitness landed at 6.406, worse than both parents (6.291 and 6.308) and well behind the new best of 6.274. Every scenario score rose versus the champion, showing the thicker arms and wedge tilt added mass/drag without buying enough robustness to pay for it. Worth testing next: try the battery wedge alone at under 1 degree, without the arm-thickness increase, to isolate whether tilt has any standalone benefit.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.369	143.1	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.095	174.0	39.1°
crosswind	3.942	167.5	33.8°
gusty_light	3.774	160.3	32.7°
hot_thin	3.593	152.6	27.6°
storm	4.916	208.9	31.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.8°
rear sweep	36.3°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	1.9°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b7770d597f13

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.415 Wh/km
vs baseline	6.9% better
scenario mean	3.955 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.920 Wh/km
frame mass	107.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 11 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two mid-pack designs that shared elevated sweep and plate proportions, betting that combining their deck-gap and arm-thickness traits could close some of the gap to the leaders.

methodTightened the deck gap slightly (about 31.6mm to 29.5mm), thickened the arms to 4.3mm, trimmed front sweep by about 1 degree, and kept plate length the same as both parents.

resultFitness came in at 6.415, worse than both parents (6.372 and 6.351) and far off the 6.274 leader. The cross didn't inherit either parent's strengths and only added arm mass, with every scenario score landing above the leader pack. Worth testing next: stop breeding from this deck-gap/arm-thickness lineage and redirect crossovers toward the champion pool instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.398	144.4	25.3°
cold_headwind	4.072	173.0	37.9°
crosswind	3.933	167.1	33.0°
gusty_light	3.782	160.7	32.1°
hot_thin	3.621	153.8	27.3°
storm	4.920	209.0	29.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.96
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	38.9°
rear sweep	38.1°
plate length	×0.92
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	29.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.33
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b1d5fcb24f99

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.533 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.1% better
scenario mean	4.027 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.012 Wh/km
frame mass	113.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 11 via crossover

hypothesisEffectively a self-pairing of an already-weak design, betting that stretching plate length while trimming arm width could recover some of its fitness deficit.

methodStretched plate length by roughly 9%, trimmed arm width fractionally, and left everything else -- including the sizable battery wedge tilt and already-thick plates -- unchanged from the parent.

resultFitness was 6.533, worse even than the already-weak parent (6.494) and far off the 6.274 best-so-far. Stretching plate length alone added mass without touching the parent's real problems (heavy wedge, thick plates). Worth testing next: prune this lineage from future breeding and replace it with fresh immigrants rather than trying to patch it gene by gene.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.442	146.2	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.166	177.0	39.0°
crosswind	4.025	171.0	34.1°
gusty_light	3.849	163.5	32.7°
hot_thin	3.668	155.8	27.6°
storm	5.012	212.9	31.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.19
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.18
plate width	×1.07
deck gap	34.5 mm
battery wedge	2.0°
plate thickness	×1.06
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate fc2c7ef36dda

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	72.2 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 11 via mutation

hypothesisSame champion parent; the bet was to shift the design out of the cf_plate family into pa12_cf, chasing whatever mass/cost tradeoff that plastic offers, while loosening the arm waist and widening the plate slightly.

methodLoosened the arm waist taper, widened the plate a few percent, shortened arm length slightly, and pushed the material blend far enough to cross into the pa12_cf family instead of carbon-fiber plate.

resultInvalid: the plate was too thin for pa12_cf's manufacturability floor (1.4mm vs the 1.6mm minimum required). The mutation changed material family but kept a plate-thickness setting tuned for cf_plate's looser gauge requirement. Lesson: any material swap needs a compensating thickness bump baked in, or it inherits a gauge that's illegal for the new plastic. Worth testing next: repeat this exact cross but with plate thickness bumped up 15-20% to respect pa12_cf's floor.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.24
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.72
arm thickness	4.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.04
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 5fa016e60352

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	104.5 g
material	asa
born	generation 11 via immigrant

hypothesisA random immigrant probing a very different design region -- steep sweep angles, heavier arms, and asa plastic -- to check whether the search has overlooked a viable design outside the cf_plate cluster the leaders live in.

methodA fresh random design with shorter arms, a wider/thicker cross-section, very aggressive front/rear sweep (47/61 degrees), a steep battery wedge, thick plates, and asa plastic instead of carbon fiber.

resultInvalid: despite a large plate-thickness multiplier, the computed web at the main plate came out far below asa's minimum gauge (0.37mm vs 1.90mm required). The extreme sweep and length/width combination erodes plate material faster than the thickness setting can compensate. Lesson: at high sweep angles, the thickness multiplier doesn't scale linearly with actual print-safe web thickness -- this region is geometrically infeasible. Worth testing next: cap sweep angle for asa/petg immigrants to a range pre-validated against the plate-web model.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.93
arm width	×1.12
arm waist	×0.59
arm thickness	5.9 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	47.3°
rear sweep	61.1°
plate length	×1.27
plate width	×0.91
deck gap	28.0 mm
battery wedge	14.2°
plate thickness	×1.52
material	asa

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 7c7bb013dfe2

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	99.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 11 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two mid-tier parents, betting that shrinking the deck gap and lengthening the arms could cut frontal area and mass for a meaningful efficiency win.

methodShrank the deck gap sharply (about 26.9mm to 20.0mm), widened the arms to match the wider parent, trimmed rear sweep about 2 degrees, and stretched arm length slightly beyond either parent.

resultInvalid: a 20mm deck gap doesn't leave enough vertical clearance for the FC/ESC stack, a hard manufacturability floor. Lesson: deck gap has a firm lower bound in the low-to-mid 20s (mm), and crossovers keep landing there when both parents already sit close to the edge. Worth testing next: give deck gap a protected floor in the sampler, above the electronics stack height, so evaluations aren't wasted here.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.34
arm width	×1.00
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.3°
rear sweep	34.5°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	20.0 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate ab38d7aba00d

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_top 1.00 mm, stock 1.75 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	93.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 11 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the runner-up with a near-identical sibling of the same fitness, betting that shrinking plate length while holding arm width could trim mass from an already-strong design.

methodShrank plate length by about 5% while nudging arm width up fractionally, leaving sweep, plate thickness, and material as in the runner-up.

resultInvalid: shrinking plate length while arm width stayed high pinched the plate-top web below the cf_plate minimum (1.00mm vs 1.75mm required). Lesson: plate length and arm width interact at the plate-top web, so trimming one without relaxing the other can break even a strong parent design. Worth testing next: pair any plate-length reduction with a small plate-width or thickness increase to preserve top-web margin.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.26
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.9°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×0.92
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	26.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.74
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 9d5c4afef43d

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	119.9 g
material	asa
born	generation 11 via immigrant

hypothesisAnother random immigrant probing the heavy-arm, high-sweep, asa-plastic region, betting that a bulkier structural profile with an inflated arm waist might unlock a storm-tolerant design outside the current cluster.

methodA fresh random design with near-parent arm length, an arm waist wider than the arm itself, thick 6.7mm arms, steep front/rear sweep (43/52 degrees), large plates, a big battery wedge, and asa plastic.

resultInvalid: the same failure mode as the other asa immigrant -- the plate-thickness multiplier didn't survive the geometry, leaving the main plate web at 1.20mm against asa's 1.90mm minimum. Lesson: this second asa/high-sweep failure confirms it's a systematic dead zone, where steep sweep plus an enlarged arm waist starves plate web thickness regardless of the thickness gene. Worth testing next: exclude arm-waist-over-1.0x combined with sweep-over-40 degrees from the immigrant sampler until the plate model is checked analytically against that region.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.96
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×1.24
arm thickness	6.7 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	43.3°
rear sweep	52.1°
plate length	×1.21
plate width	×0.89
deck gap	29.7 mm
battery wedge	12.7°
plate thickness	×1.57
material	asa

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 6a49f495e1e3

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	97.4 g
material	petg
born	generation 11 via immigrant

hypothesisA random immigrant testing a short, wide-arm, high-sweep petg design, betting a stockier arm profile might trade some efficiency for print robustness.

methodA fresh random design with arms shortened about 22%, widened arms, steep front sweep (nearly 50 degrees), moderate plate size, and petg plastic.

resultInvalid: the short arm length combined with the steep sweep moved the arm's tongue/bolt pattern completely off the edge of the main plate -- a geometric interference, not a strength failure. Lesson: arm length and sweep jointly decide whether mounting bolts land on the plate, and this pairing crossed that line. Worth testing next: add a fast bolt-pattern feasibility pre-filter before running full sims on short-arm, high-sweep immigrants.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×1.14
arm waist	×0.79
arm thickness	5.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	49.8°
rear sweep	43.9°
plate length	×1.06
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	33.0 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	petg

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 3d15d3b4bd87

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	110.1 g
material	petg
born	generation 11 via immigrant

hypothesisAnother random immigrant, betting on a compact, steep-sweep petg design with a strong battery wedge tilt to probe aggressive aerodynamic tilting as a new strategy.

methodA fresh random design with near-parent arm length, high symmetric front/rear sweep (52/52 degrees), large plates, a tight 20.1mm deck gap, a steep 14-degree battery wedge, and petg plastic.

resultInvalid: the same deck-gap floor violation as 7c7bb013dfe2 -- 20.1mm doesn't clear the FC/ESC stack. Lesson: the deck-gap floor is being hit independently by both crossover and random immigrants this generation, which argues for a harder constraint in the sampler rather than catching it only at evaluation. Worth testing next: raise the immigrant sampler's minimum deck gap directly into the mid-20s (mm).

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.99
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.85
arm thickness	5.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	51.8°
rear sweep	51.8°
plate length	×1.14
plate width	×1.16
deck gap	20.1 mm
battery wedge	14.0°
plate thickness	×1.01
material	petg

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 8f0cd6f3c5bc

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	105.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 11 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two mid-tier parents, betting that narrowing plate width while pushing plate thickness even higher could shore up structural margin for a robustness gain.

methodNarrowed plate width back toward stock (about 1.05x to 1.00x), increased the already-thick plate stock further (1.41x to 1.46x), and left the deck gap essentially unchanged.

resultInvalid: even with plate thickness pushed higher, the plate-top web still came in under the cf_plate minimum (1.25mm vs 1.75mm required), because the sweep angles inherited from the parents (about 34/38 degrees) were already carving that spot thin. Lesson: increasing the thickness multiplier doesn't rescue plate-top margin when sweep angle is the real driver of the thin spot. Worth testing next: once sweep exceeds roughly 33 degrees, check plate-top web thickness explicitly rather than relying on the blanket thickness multiplier.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.96
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.9°
rear sweep	38.2°
plate length	×0.92
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.46
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a0a25432bc7e

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.308 Wh/km
vs baseline	8.4% better
scenario mean	3.888 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.840 Wh/km
frame mass	92.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 10 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the near-champion 8d9fd4a01c9a (6.291) with a weaker but differently-swept design (5bf4af89c395, 6.497) probes whether borrowing its front sweep angle can help without dragging down performance.

methodIncreased front sweep from about 32° to 35.5°, tightened the deck gap from 26.0 to 25.0 mm, and nudged plate width down slightly, keeping the cf_plate material.

resultLanded at 6.308, essentially matching sibling 423a5b75b462 and staying just above the 6.291 best. Not a new winner, but confirms the champion's core arm/plate proportions dominate over the borrowed sweep angle. Next idea: hold the champion's sweep exactly and vary only deck gap in finer steps to see if 25-26 mm is truly optimal.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.324	141.2	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.030	171.2	39.1°
crosswind	3.875	164.6	33.7°
gusty_light	3.717	157.9	32.7°
hot_thin	3.542	150.5	27.6°
storm	4.840	205.6	31.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.31
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.5°
rear sweep	36.6°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	25.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.76
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b11bd9e31fc9

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.351 Wh/km
vs baseline	7.8% better
scenario mean	3.913 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.876 Wh/km
frame mass	96.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 10 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing near-champion 8d9fd4a01c9a (6.291) with mid-pack 88460ed9a2e2 (6.454) tests whether a thicker arm waist can allow a thinner plate without losing structural margin.

methodThickened the arm waist from ×0.55 to ×0.67, opened the deck gap from 26.0 to 28.3 mm, and trimmed plate width and thickness slightly.

resultFitness landed at 6.351, close to sibling 44ef779fcdde but still behind the 6.291 best. The thicker waist added mass that the thinner plate and wider deck gap couldn't fully offset. Next: try the thicker waist paired with the champion's original deck gap (26.0 mm) rather than opening it further, to isolate whether the gap change is hurting more than helping.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.334	141.6	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.067	172.8	39.5°
crosswind	3.903	165.8	34.0°
gusty_light	3.739	158.9	32.9°
hot_thin	3.557	151.1	27.6°
storm	4.876	207.2	32.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.67
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	36.4°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	28.3 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.74
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 44ef779fcdde

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.352 Wh/km
vs baseline	7.8% better
scenario mean	3.913 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.877 Wh/km
frame mass	97.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 10 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing near-champion 8d9fd4a01c9a (6.291) with weaker 7c1296374769 (6.579) tests whether a wider arm from the weaker parent can be tolerated if paired with a thinner plate to keep mass in check.

methodWidened arm width from ×0.76 to ×0.93, opened the deck gap slightly from 26.0 to 26.9 mm, and thinned the plate marginally from ×0.75 to ×0.73.

resultFitness landed at 6.352, between the two parents but still behind the 6.291 best. The wider arm cost more than the thinner plate saved, consistent with other siblings this generation showing the champion's narrower arm width is hard to beat. Next: hold arm width fixed at the champion's value and vary only deck gap to isolate its individual effect.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.333	141.6	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.068	172.8	39.4°
crosswind	3.903	165.8	34.0°
gusty_light	3.739	158.8	32.8°
hot_thin	3.557	151.1	27.6°
storm	4.877	207.2	32.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.93
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.1°
rear sweep	36.4°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.9 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.73
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 17e316010361

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.372 Wh/km
vs baseline	7.5% better
scenario mean	3.929 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.886 Wh/km
frame mass	103.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 10 via mutation

hypothesisParent 12db578f6d9a (6.387) was a mid-pack cf_plate design; this mutation bets that pushing the front arms further forward while trimming plate thickness and opening the deck gap slightly can shave mass without losing stiffness where it hurts.

methodIncreased front sweep from about 34° to 40°, thinned the plate slightly (×1.41 to ×1.33 stock thickness), and widened the deck gap from 30.3 to 31.6 mm.

resultFitness improved modestly to 6.372 from the parent's 6.387, but still trails the standing best of 6.291. The extra sweep likely cut a touch of drag/mass without tripping any structural limit, but the thinner plate wasn't enough to close the gap to the champion. Worth trying: keep this sweep angle but pair it with the champion's leaner arm-length/width combo instead of the thicker plate lineage.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.378	143.5	25.3°
cold_headwind	4.041	171.7	37.9°
crosswind	3.908	166.0	33.0°
gusty_light	3.759	159.7	32.1°
hot_thin	3.599	152.9	27.3°
storm	4.886	207.6	29.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.96
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	39.7°
rear sweep	38.2°
plate length	×0.92
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	31.6 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.33
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 20e595a9b3bb

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.387 Wh/km
vs baseline	7.3% better
scenario mean	3.937 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.900 Wh/km
frame mass	105.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 10 via crossover

hypothesisA near-duplicate crossover of 12db578f6d9a (6.387) with 056184de8923 (6.412), essentially testing whether recombination without real gene movement reproduces the parent's performance as a sanity baseline.

methodGenes came out nearly identical to parent 12db578f6d9a, with no meaningful change to sweep, plate, or material.

resultFitness landed at 6.387, matching the parent exactly, confirming the crossover contributed no new information here. It's a wasted evaluation but a useful control point showing the pipeline reproduces known results faithfully. Next: bias crossover selection away from near-identical parents to avoid burning evals on redundant candidates.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.378	143.5	25.3°
cold_headwind	4.049	172.0	37.8°
crosswind	3.921	166.6	33.0°
gusty_light	3.769	160.1	32.0°
hot_thin	3.603	153.1	27.2°
storm	4.900	208.2	29.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.96
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.9°
rear sweep	38.2°
plate length	×0.92
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	30.3 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.41
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 12db578f6d9anew best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.387 Wh/km
vs baseline	7.3% better
scenario mean	3.937 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.899 Wh/km
frame mass	105.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 9 via crossover

hypothesisRecombine two selected parents: their strengths may be complementary. Parents: 056184 (6.41) and d54e04 (6.50) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: plate length ×0.92 (was plate length ×0.97), arm length ×0.96 (was arm length ×1.01), plate thickness ×1.41 (was plate thickness ×1.36), front sweep 33.9° (was front sweep 33.3°).

resultAggregate 6.387 Wh/km. NEW BEST-SO-FAR at evaluation time. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.381	143.6	25.3°
cold_headwind	4.046	171.9	37.8°
crosswind	3.921	166.6	32.9°
gusty_light	3.769	160.1	32.0°
hot_thin	3.605	153.2	27.2°
storm	4.899	208.1	29.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.96
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.9°
rear sweep	38.2°
plate length	×0.92
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	30.3 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.41
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate f7f19e696159

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.427 Wh/km
vs baseline	6.7% better
scenario mean	3.961 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.934 Wh/km
frame mass	106.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 10 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing 2ab37da5aded (6.429) with mid-pack 12db578f6d9a (6.387) bets that reducing front sweep back toward 30° while keeping a slightly thicker plate can recover some of the performance lost in both parents.

methodReduced front sweep from about 32° to 30° and nudged plate thickness up marginally from ×1.10 to ×1.11, with arm length essentially unchanged.

resultFitness landed at 6.427, close to parent 2ab37da5aded's 6.429 and still well off the 6.291 best. The sweep reduction alone wasn't enough to unlock a real gain, implying this parent pair's arm/plate proportions are the limiting factor rather than sweep angle. Next: pair this lower sweep angle with the champion's arm-width and plate-length values instead of this parent lineage's.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.387	143.9	25.4°
cold_headwind	4.090	173.7	38.4°
crosswind	3.951	167.9	33.5°
gusty_light	3.789	161.0	32.3°
hot_thin	3.614	153.5	27.4°
storm	4.934	209.6	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.05
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	34.1 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.11
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 90910ad23a0b

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.494 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.7% better
scenario mean	4.003 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.981 Wh/km
frame mass	109.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 10 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two mid-pack parents (88460ed9a2e2 6.454, 01f642b698ee 6.523) bets that widening the deck gap and growing the plate slightly can find a better balance point between them.

methodOpened the deck gap from 31.2 to 34.5 mm, grew plate width and length slightly, and widened the arm marginally.

resultFitness landed at 6.494, roughly splitting the difference between its parents but nowhere near the 6.291 best-so-far. Growing both plate dimensions together while opening the deck gap looks like it just adds mass without any offsetting gain. Next: this parent pair seems to have plateaued; better to cross either parent directly with the champion lineage instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.423	145.4	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.139	175.9	38.9°
crosswind	3.999	169.9	33.9°
gusty_light	3.827	162.6	32.6°
hot_thin	3.648	155.0	27.6°
storm	4.981	211.6	31.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.19
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.08
plate width	×1.07
deck gap	34.5 mm
battery wedge	2.0°
plate thickness	×1.06
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 7cde9c33ec87

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.513 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.4% better
scenario mean	4.013 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.000 Wh/km
frame mass	110.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 10 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing 5bf4af89c395 (6.497) with near-champion 8d9fd4a01c9a (6.291) bets that borrowing the champion's compact plate proportions can lift the weaker parent's performance closer to the front of the pack.

methodGrew plate length slightly from ×1.16 to ×1.19, thickened the arm waist marginally, and tightened the deck gap from 33.3 to 32.9 mm.

resultFitness came in at 6.513, actually worse than both parents (6.497 and 6.291), so the recombination lost ground rather than gaining it. The larger plate combined with the wider arm waist likely added mass without a compensating benefit, and storm again shows the largest hit at 5.00. Next: this cross should be abandoned in favor of pairing 8d9fd4a01c9a with parents that share more of its plate geometry.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.418	145.2	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.164	176.9	39.4°
crosswind	4.013	170.5	34.3°
gusty_light	3.834	162.9	32.8°
hot_thin	3.647	154.9	27.6°
storm	5.000	212.4	32.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.19
arm width	×0.95
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.1°
rear sweep	38.6°
plate length	×1.19
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	32.9 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.93
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 1d6ed7910f85

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.616 Wh/km
vs baseline	3.9% better
scenario mean	4.075 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.082 Wh/km
frame mass	119.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 10 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two weaker parents (01f642b698ee 6.523, 88460ed9a2e2 6.454) bets that combining their wider arms and larger plates might find a niche the fitter lineage hasn't explored, even though both starting points already trail the best-so-far.

methodWidened arms from ×0.78 to ×0.91, lengthened arms from ×1.05 to ×1.12, grew the plate slightly, and introduced a small 0.2° battery wedge tilt.

resultFitness worsened to 6.616, below both parents and far off the 6.291 best. Bulking up arm width and length together likely added mass faster than any aerodynamic or stiffness benefit could offset, especially visible in the storm scenario spiking to 5.08. Next: this parent pair looks like a dead end for further crossover; better to retire this lineage and seed new mutations from the champion instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.472	147.5	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.236	180.0	39.2°
crosswind	4.063	172.6	34.1°
gusty_light	3.892	165.4	32.8°
hot_thin	3.705	157.4	27.6°
storm	5.082	215.9	32.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.12
arm width	×0.91
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	40.0°
rear sweep	47.8°
plate length	×1.19
plate width	×1.18
deck gap	33.1 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×1.10
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 4f00eb4dd7f0

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_top 1.02 mm, stock 1.75 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	91.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 10 via mutation

hypothesisStarting from the near-champion 8d9fd4a01c9a (6.291), this mutation bets that shrinking the plate footprint further and opening the deck gap can trim more mass off an already-strong design.

methodShortened plate length from ×0.97 to ×0.89 of stock and increased the deck gap from 26.0 to 27.7 mm, with a negligible plate-width bump.

resultInvalid: the plate web thinned to 1.02 mm against a 1.75 mm stock minimum. Shrinking plate length on this lineage eats directly into web thickness margin, so the champion's plate is already close to the structural floor. Lesson for next time: any further plate-length shrink on this branch needs a compensating thickness increase, not just a smaller footprint.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	36.3°
plate length	×0.89
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	27.7 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 0e5d846ccfa1

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	77.5 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 10 via crossover

hypothesisCombining two mid-pack cf_plate parents (12db578f6d9a 6.387, 056184de8923 6.412), this crossover bets that switching toward a lighter pa12_cf material blend alongside a shorter, thicker-waisted arm can unlock a mass win neither parent achieved alone.

methodShifted material composition further toward pa12_cf, shortened arm length from ×0.96 to ×0.90, shrank plate length from ×0.92 to ×0.88, and thickened the arm waist from ×0.55 to ×0.61.

resultInvalid: arm tip deflection failure under pa12_cf. The material swap reduces stiffness enough that even with a thicker waist the arm flexes too much at the tip. This echoes a recurring pattern this generation: pa12_cf crossovers keep failing deflection unless arm thickness itself (not just waist) is beefed up. Next: try pa12_cf only paired with a thicker arm cross-section, not just a fatter waist.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.90
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.61
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.9°
rear sweep	38.2°
plate length	×0.88
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	30.3 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.41
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate fd317283218c

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	82.6 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 10 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing mid-pack 12db578f6d9a (6.387) with weaker 5bf4af89c395 (6.497) bets that a pa12_cf material shift combined with reduced front sweep and increased rear sweep could unlock a lighter, still-stiff-enough frame.

methodReduced front sweep from about 34° to 31°, increased rear sweep from 38° to 40.5°, shifted material composition toward pa12_cf, and shrank plate length slightly.

resultInvalid: arm tip deflection failure under pa12_cf, the same failure mode seen in sibling 0e5d846ccfa1. This confirms pa12_cf crossovers in this generation consistently lack the stiffness margin these arm geometries need. Next: stop testing pa12_cf on these arm-length/width combos until arm thickness itself is increased to compensate for the material's lower stiffness.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	30.6°
rear sweep	40.5°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.08
deck gap	30.8 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.40
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 4a2bcbc84f7a

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	107.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 10 via crossover

hypothesisA self-cross of champion-adjacent 12db578f6d9a (6.387) tests whether reducing rear sweep and widening the plate can tighten the frame's footprint for a small efficiency gain.

methodReduced rear sweep from about 38° to 35° and widened the plate from ×1.05 to ×1.09, with a small shift back toward cf_plate material.

resultInvalid: rotor disks overlap, tip clearance violated. Pulling rear sweep down that far closes the angle between rear rotors faster than the wider plate can compensate for, putting adjacent rotor disks into collision. Lesson: rear sweep below roughly 36-37° on this arm-length lineage isn't viable without also lengthening the arms. Next: try the same plate widening but hold rear sweep near 38° or increase arm length to preserve clearance.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.96
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.9°
rear sweep	35.0°
plate length	×0.92
plate width	×1.09
deck gap	30.3 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.41
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 056184de8923new best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.412 Wh/km
vs baseline	6.9% better
scenario mean	3.953 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.919 Wh/km
frame mass	108.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 6 via crossover

hypothesisWith d60afe7b910e having just shown thinner arms pay off, and 50e6dee87d3a (6.466) still the most efficient base geometry, the bet was to fuse 71f9b10676b2's (6.595) thin-arm trend with 50e6dee87d3a's proven sweep/gap tuning.

methodTrimmed arm length slightly (×1.13→×1.01), thinned the arms further (4.6mm→4.0mm), and left plate length and front sweep essentially unchanged.

result6.412 Wh/km — another NEW WINNER, beating the just-set 6.461 mark from d60afe7b910e. Shorter, thinner arms combined with 50e6dee87d3a's sweep geometry improved every scenario, most notably storm (4.92) and calm_warm (3.39). Worth testing: hold arm thickness at 4.0mm and sweep arm length down further to find where the strength margin starts to break.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.390	144.0	25.3°
cold_headwind	4.066	172.7	37.9°
crosswind	3.942	167.5	33.1°
gusty_light	3.783	160.7	32.1°
hot_thin	3.615	153.6	27.3°
storm	4.919	209.0	29.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.01
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.3°
rear sweep	37.6°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	30.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.36
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 2ab37da5aded✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.429 Wh/km
vs baseline	6.6% better
scenario mean	3.962 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.935 Wh/km
frame mass	106.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 9 via designer

hypothesisHeadless-Claude design hypothesis (see designer_log.md).

methodGenome: arm length ×1.05, arm width ×0.82, arm waist ×0.60, arm thickness 4.2 mm.

resultAggregate 6.429 Wh/km. Best-so-far was 6.412 -- no improvement. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.390	144.0	25.4°
cold_headwind	4.095	174.0	38.5°
crosswind	3.949	167.7	33.5°
gusty_light	3.789	161.0	32.3°
hot_thin	3.615	153.6	27.4°
storm	4.935	209.6	29.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.05
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	34.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.10
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 88460ed9a2e2

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.454 Wh/km
vs baseline	6.3% better
scenario mean	3.978 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.951 Wh/km
frame mass	106.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 7 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents were solid mid-6.4s performers; this cross tests whether slimming the arm width further and adding a slight battery tilt can trim drag beyond what either parent achieved alone.

methodNarrowed arm width to 75% (from 86%), tilted the battery wedge up to 1.9° from flat, opened the deck gap marginally to 31.2mm, and pulled rear sweep in slightly to 34°.

result6.454 Wh/km — the best result of this generation, beating both parents (6.466, 6.487), but still short of the 6.412 best-so-far. The narrower arm cut drag evenly across every scenario, including the gen's best storm figure (4.95), suggesting slim arm width plus a small battery tilt is a productive direction. Next: push arm width narrower still (below 0.75x) while holding everything else fixed, to see if drag keeps falling before hitting a structural limit.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.402	144.5	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.113	174.7	38.7°
crosswind	3.974	168.8	33.8°
gusty_light	3.804	161.6	32.5°
hot_thin	3.626	154.1	27.5°
storm	4.951	210.3	30.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.18
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.5°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	31.2 mm
battery wedge	1.9°
plate thickness	×1.06
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 5bf4af89c395

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.497 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.6% better
scenario mean	4.004 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.988 Wh/km
frame mass	109.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 9 via crossover

hypothesisRecombine two selected parents: their strengths may be complementary. Parents: 86c66a (6.50) and 88460e (6.45) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: rear sweep 38.5° (was rear sweep 36.6°), arm length ×1.19 (was arm length ×1.21), plate thickness ×0.92 (was plate thickness ×0.94), plate length ×1.16 (was plate length ×1.16).

resultAggregate 6.497 Wh/km. Best-so-far was 6.412 -- no improvement. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.412	145.0	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.155	176.5	39.2°
crosswind	4.001	170.0	34.3°
gusty_light	3.825	162.5	32.8°
hot_thin	3.640	154.6	27.6°
storm	4.988	211.9	32.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.19
arm width	×0.94
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.1°
rear sweep	38.5°
plate length	×1.16
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	33.3 mm
battery wedge	1.1°
plate thickness	×0.92
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 0a44e521470e

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.517 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.4% better
scenario mean	4.017 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.999 Wh/km
frame mass	111.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 9 via crossover

hypothesisRecombine two selected parents: their strengths may be complementary. Parents: b39589 (6.50) and 056184 (6.41) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: battery wedge 3.8° (was battery wedge 0.2°), deck gap 31.1 mm (was deck gap 30.1 mm), plate width ×1.24 (was plate width ×1.25), arm width ×0.90 (was arm width ×0.90).

resultAggregate 6.517 Wh/km. Best-so-far was 6.412 -- no improvement. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.444	146.3	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.154	176.5	38.7°
crosswind	4.000	169.9	33.6°
gusty_light	3.839	163.1	32.5°
hot_thin	3.667	155.8	27.5°
storm	4.999	212.4	30.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.3°
rear sweep	43.8°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.24
deck gap	31.1 mm
battery wedge	3.8°
plate thickness	×1.17
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 01f642b698ee✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.523 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.3% better
scenario mean	4.018 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.009 Wh/km
frame mass	113.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 9 via designer

hypothesisHeadless-Claude design hypothesis (see designer_log.md).

methodGenome: arm length ×1.05, arm width ×0.78, arm waist ×0.55, arm thickness 4.0 mm.

resultAggregate 6.523 Wh/km. Best-so-far was 6.412 -- no improvement. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.429	145.7	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.161	176.8	38.6°
crosswind	4.010	170.3	33.8°
gusty_light	3.842	163.2	32.5°
hot_thin	3.660	155.5	27.5°
storm	5.009	212.8	30.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.05
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	40.0°
rear sweep	48.0°
plate length	×1.18
plate width	×1.18
deck gap	33.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.10
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 7c1296374769

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.579 Wh/km
vs baseline	4.5% better
scenario mean	4.055 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.049 Wh/km
frame mass	116.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 9 via crossover

hypothesisRecombine two selected parents: their strengths may be complementary. Parents: b547bb (6.53) and 056184 (6.41) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: front sweep 38.8° (was front sweep 33.2°), arm waist ×0.75 (was arm waist ×0.67), battery wedge 1.2° (was battery wedge 0.1°), rear sweep 41.0° (was rear sweep 42.3°).

resultAggregate 6.579 Wh/km. Best-so-far was 6.412 -- no improvement. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.475	147.6	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.192	178.1	38.8°
crosswind	4.035	171.4	33.6°
gusty_light	3.875	164.6	32.5°
hot_thin	3.703	157.3	27.5°
storm	5.049	214.5	31.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.02
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.75
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	38.8°
rear sweep	41.0°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	1.2°
plate thickness	×1.25
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d5b7768c74ba

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.677 Wh/km
vs baseline	3.0% better
scenario mean	4.114 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.126 Wh/km
frame mass	120.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 9 via crossover

hypothesisRecombine two selected parents: their strengths may be complementary. Parents: 86c66a (6.50) and 88460e (6.45) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: plate width ×1.23 (was plate width ×1.06), arm waist ×0.63 (was arm waist ×0.55), deck gap 36.0 mm (was deck gap 33.3 mm), rear sweep 34.0° (was rear sweep 36.6°).

resultAggregate 6.677 Wh/km. Best-so-far was 6.412 -- no improvement. Weakest scenario: storm.

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.501	148.7	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.283	181.9	39.9°
crosswind	4.113	174.7	34.7°
gusty_light	3.927	166.8	33.2°
hot_thin	3.734	158.6	27.8°
storm	5.126	217.8	34.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.21
arm width	×0.97
arm waist	×0.63
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.1°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.16
plate width	×1.23
deck gap	36.0 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×0.94
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 9b1ad93e6ae7

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	116.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 9 via crossover

hypothesisRecombine two selected parents: their strengths may be complementary. Parents: f47a31 and 73a3de (6.49) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: arm width ×0.91 (was arm width ×0.95), deck gap 24.0 mm (was deck gap 24.2 mm).

resultINVALID -- rotor too close to deck/battery. The design never flew; the constraint itself is the learning.

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.20
arm width	×0.91
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.15
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	24.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.17
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 1cb131f8dcd9

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	81.0 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 9 via crossover

hypothesisRecombine two selected parents: their strengths may be complementary. Parents: 056184 (6.41) and a7d348 (6.48) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: material 0.29 (was material 0.11), plate length ×0.90 (was plate length ×0.97), arm length ×1.08 (was arm length ×1.01), deck gap 31.5 mm (was deck gap 30.2 mm).

resultINVALID -- arm tip deflection (pa12_cf). The design never flew; the constraint itself is the learning.

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.08
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.3°
rear sweep	37.6°
plate length	×0.90
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	31.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.39
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate f210f6970d00

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	135.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 9 via crossover

hypothesisRecombine two selected parents: their strengths may be complementary. Parents: b23f0b (6.63) and 73a3de (6.49) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: arm thickness 5.4 mm (was arm thickness 4.6 mm), rear sweep 35.4° (was rear sweep 39.2°), deck gap 27.5 mm (was deck gap 30.1 mm), arm width ×0.90 (was arm width ×0.88).

resultINVALID -- rotor too close to deck/battery. The design never flew; the constraint itself is the learning.

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.21
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	5.4 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	35.4°
plate length	×1.23
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	27.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.05
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d07e9eb4efa0

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	83.4 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 9 via crossover

hypothesisRecombine two selected parents: their strengths may be complementary. Parents: b39589 (6.50) and b23f0b (6.63) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: rear sweep 36.8° (was rear sweep 43.7°), deck gap 35.8 mm (was deck gap 30.1 mm), front sweep 37.6° (was front sweep 33.3°), material 0.27 (was material 0.15).

resultINVALID -- arm tip deflection (pa12_cf). The design never flew; the constraint itself is the learning.

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.03
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.6°
rear sweep	36.8°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.22
deck gap	35.8 mm
battery wedge	0.8°
plate thickness	×1.18
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate f9975e637f95

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	111.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 9 via crossover

hypothesisRecombine two selected parents: their strengths may be complementary. Parents: b547bb (6.53) and d54e04 (6.50) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: rear sweep 35.4° (was rear sweep 42.3°), plate width ×0.96 (was plate width ×0.99), battery wedge 0.7° (was battery wedge 0.1°), arm length ×1.02 (was arm length ×1.01).

resultINVALID -- plate web too thin (plate_main 1.18 mm, stock 1.90 mm). The design never flew; the constraint itself is the learning.

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.02
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.66
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.3°
rear sweep	35.4°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×0.96
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	0.7°
plate thickness	×1.26
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate c90e6c04d60b

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	105.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 9 via crossover

hypothesisRecombine two selected parents: their strengths may be complementary. Parents: 056184 (6.41) and b3ee16 (6.48) Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: plate width ×1.00 (was plate width ×1.05), deck gap 27.3 mm (was deck gap 30.2 mm), battery wedge 1.5° (was battery wedge 0.0°).

resultINVALID -- rotor too close to deck/battery. The design never flew; the constraint itself is the learning.

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.01
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.3°
rear sweep	37.6°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	27.3 mm
battery wedge	1.5°
plate thickness	×1.36
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b3ee16482b7f

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.478 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.9% better
scenario mean	3.993 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.971 Wh/km
frame mass	113.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 8 via crossover

hypothesisThis was the mirror cross of the same two parents (champion 6.412 and weak 6.582), betting that keeping the champion as primary parent while only lightly borrowing the weak parent's deck gap and plate thickness would preserve most of the champion's efficiency.

methodDeck gap widened marginally to 32.8 mm, plate thickness increased sharply by 44% versus the champion, and arm width/length nudged up a few percent.

resultScored 6.478 -- worse than the 6.412 champion but notably better than the 6.582 weak parent, showing the champion's genetic contribution dominated this cross even with a much heavier plate riding along. The large plate-thickness increase didn't pay for itself, though it also didn't break anything; a tighter version with plate thickness held near the champion's own value (rather than +44%) is the natural next probe.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.420	145.3	25.4°
cold_headwind	4.114	174.8	38.2°
crosswind	3.982	169.2	33.3°
gusty_light	3.820	162.3	32.2°
hot_thin	3.648	155.0	27.3°
storm	4.971	211.2	29.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.03
arm width	×0.88
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.4°
rear sweep	37.6°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	32.8 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.44
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a7d348b99940

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.483 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.9% better
scenario mean	3.996 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.974 Wh/km
frame mass	108.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 8 via mutation

hypothesisComing off a solid 6.461 parent, this mutation probed whether opening up the deck gap substantially would relieve some structural margin and let material fraction rise for free stiffness.

methodDeck gap widened sharply from 30.1 mm to 38.3 mm, material fraction raised from 0.04 to 0.17, plate width trimmed slightly, and rear sweep shallowed to 34.0 degrees.

resultCame in at 6.483, slightly worse than the 6.461 parent and short of the 6.412 best-so-far. The big deck-gap opening likely added unneeded frontal height/mass without an offsetting benefit, since none of the per-scenario numbers improved meaningfully over the parent. Worth testing a much smaller deck-gap increase (32-33 mm) with the same material bump to see if a gentler version pays off.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.415	145.1	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.136	175.7	39.1°
crosswind	3.991	169.6	34.1°
gusty_light	3.819	162.3	32.7°
hot_thin	3.640	154.6	27.6°
storm	4.974	211.3	32.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.20
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.2°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.13
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	38.3 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.98
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 73a3de639945

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.491 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.7% better
scenario mean	4.001 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.981 Wh/km
frame mass	109.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 8 via crossover

hypothesisSelf-crossing the 6.454 parent with itself was a low-risk probe into whether a slightly wider arm waist and shallower front sweep, isolated from any other change, could nudge the same design forward.

methodArm waist loosened from 0.55x to 0.65x and front sweep shallowed by about 1.5 degrees; every other gene stayed at the parent's values.

resultScored 6.491, a step backward from the 6.454 parent, meaning the waist/sweep tweak alone was a net negative rather than a refinement. This isolates the effect cleanly: the parent's original tighter waist was doing useful work, so future front-sweep experiments should keep arm waist locked at 0.55x.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.417	145.2	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.139	175.8	38.9°
crosswind	3.999	169.9	33.9°
gusty_light	3.826	162.5	32.6°
hot_thin	3.644	154.8	27.6°
storm	4.981	211.6	31.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.18
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.65
arm thickness	4.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	31.2 mm
battery wedge	1.9°
plate thickness	×1.06
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b39589cfab1f

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.495 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.7% better
scenario mean	4.003 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.984 Wh/km
frame mass	111.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 8 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing a mid-pack flyer with a weaker one (6.654) was a gamble that the weaker parent's wider plate geometry could be salvaged by borrowing the stronger parent's thinner arms and lower material fraction elsewhere.

methodPlate width expanded 9% beyond the fitter parent, material fraction jumped from 0.01 to 0.15, plate length trimmed slightly, and arm thickness thinned back to 4.0 mm.

resultScored 6.495, splitting the difference between its parents but not beating either outright and nowhere near the 6.412 champion. The wider, denser plate seems to have canceled out the thinner-arm savings. A cleaner test would isolate the arm-thickness change alone against the fitter parent, without also widening the plate.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.430	145.7	25.4°
cold_headwind	4.134	175.6	38.5°
crosswind	3.987	169.4	33.4°
gusty_light	3.828	162.6	32.4°
hot_thin	3.656	155.3	27.4°
storm	4.984	211.7	30.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.3°
rear sweep	43.7°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.25
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×1.18
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 86c66adc78ab

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.503 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.6% better
scenario mean	4.007 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.992 Wh/km
frame mass	111.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 8 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two closely-matched parents (6.484, 6.483) tested whether adding a slight battery wedge tilt plus a wider deck gap could improve stability in gusty/crosswind scenarios enough to justify the added structure.

methodDeck gap widened from 30.1 to 33.3 mm, battery wedge tilted to 1.0 degrees from near-flat, material fraction raised slightly, and rear sweep steepened marginally.

resultScored 6.503, worse than both parents and off the 6.412 best-so-far, with crosswind essentially flat (4.01) rather than improved -- so the battery wedge tilt bought nothing in the scenario it targeted. Given two parents this close still regressed, the deck-gap widen and wedge tilt together look like pure overhead; next worth testing the wedge tilt alone against an unmodified deck gap to isolate its effect.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.413	145.0	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.157	176.6	39.3°
crosswind	4.008	170.3	34.3°
gusty_light	3.829	162.7	32.8°
hot_thin	3.642	154.7	27.6°
storm	4.992	212.1	32.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.21
arm width	×0.94
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.1°
rear sweep	36.6°
plate length	×1.16
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	33.3 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.94
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d54e044418d8

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.504 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.6% better
scenario mean	4.008 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.991 Wh/km
frame mass	112.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 8 via crossover

hypothesisWith both parents clustered near 6.48-6.45, the bet was that a slightly longer, denser main plate (more material fraction) would add stiffness worth its weight, while deck gap and arm width stayed essentially untouched.

methodPlate length grown about 3% beyond the fitter parent, material fraction raised from 0.12 to 0.15, and deck gap nudged up half a millimeter; arm width left unchanged.

resultLanded at 6.504, worse than both parents and well off the 6.412 best-so-far, so no new winner. The extra plate material and length likely just added mass/drag without a matching aerodynamic payoff -- storm scenario (4.99) stayed the dominant cost, unmoved. Next worth trying: keep the material bump but pair it with a length cut back toward the fitter parent's baseline to isolate whether length or material fraction is the drag.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.425	145.5	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.144	176.0	38.8°
crosswind	4.004	170.1	33.9°
gusty_light	3.832	162.8	32.5°
hot_thin	3.653	155.2	27.5°
storm	4.991	212.0	30.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.18
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	35.0°
plate length	×1.10
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	31.7 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.06
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 7d41c5bf7fcb

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.510 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.5% better
scenario mean	4.012 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.996 Wh/km
frame mass	113.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 8 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents were competitive (6.491, 6.461), so this cross tried thickening the arms and widening them slightly while also boosting the rear sweep, betting that more arm robustness would pay off in the storm and crosswind scenarios.

methodArm width raised toward parity (0.99x), arm length grown 3%, material fraction raised slightly, and plate thickness held near the parents' level with rear sweep pushed toward 43 degrees.

resultFinished at 6.51, worse than both parents and the worst crosswind/storm combo of this batch (4.0 / 5.0). The added arm bulk seems to have cost more in drag than it returned in robustness. A more promising next step is isolating just the rear-sweep change without the arm-width increase, since the previous generation's champion already uses a similar sweep.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.433	145.8	25.4°
cold_headwind	4.145	176.1	38.6°
crosswind	3.999	169.9	33.6°
gusty_light	3.836	162.9	32.5°
hot_thin	3.661	155.5	27.5°
storm	4.996	212.2	30.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.04
arm width	×0.99
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.2°
rear sweep	43.3°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.15
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.16
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b547bba47781

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.528 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.2% better
scenario mean	4.023 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.011 Wh/km
frame mass	113.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 8 via crossover

hypothesisCombining a mid-pack flyer (6.491) with the champion (6.412) tested whether loosening the arm waist and thickening the plate could add robustness to the champion's already-efficient base without giving up much drag.

methodPlate width trimmed to near parity with the champion, arm waist loosened from 0.55x to 0.67x, plate thickness increased 6% beyond the non-champion parent, and arm width nudged up slightly.

resultCame in at 6.528, worse than both parents and well off the champion's 6.412. The looser arm waist plus thicker plate added drag across every scenario rather than the intended robustness gain, echoing candidate 73a3de639945's lesson that this champion lineage prefers the tighter 0.55x waist. Next worth testing the plate-thickness increase alone, with arm waist left at the champion's original 0.55x.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.443	146.3	25.4°
cold_headwind	4.158	176.6	38.7°
crosswind	4.008	170.3	33.5°
gusty_light	3.846	163.4	32.4°
hot_thin	3.671	156.0	27.5°
storm	5.011	212.9	30.3°

gene	value
arm length	×1.01
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.67
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.2°
rear sweep	42.3°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×1.25
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b23f0b070efd

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.630 Wh/km
vs baseline	3.7% better
scenario mean	4.086 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.089 Wh/km
frame mass	120.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 8 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing a weak parent (6.582) with the champion (6.412) bet that borrowing the champion's tighter plate proportions could rescue the weaker design's oversized plate footprint.

methodPlate length grown a further 8% beyond the weaker parent's already-large size, plate thickness increased 9%, and rear sweep steepened to 39.2 degrees while plate width trimmed slightly.

resultScored 6.63, worse than both parents and the weakest result of this generation -- every scenario cost rose, led by storm at 5.09. The extra plate length and thickness clearly compounded rather than offset the weak parent's mass penalty; this lineage (9d30a0e485e1's oversized plate) looks like a dead end unless plate length is cut, not grown, in future crosses.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.485	148.1	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.236	180.0	39.4°
crosswind	4.083	173.5	34.3°
gusty_light	3.903	165.8	32.8°
hot_thin	3.717	157.9	27.6°
storm	5.089	216.2	32.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.21
arm width	×0.88
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	39.2°
plate length	×1.23
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×1.05
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate f47a31a3f356

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	117.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 8 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents sat just above 6.45, so this cross bet that stiffening the deck plate and tightening the whole airframe (shorter deck gap, shallower sweeps) would shave a bit more drag without touching the still-strong arm geometry.

methodPlate thickness increased about 23%, deck gap tightened from 30.1 mm to 24.2 mm, and both front and rear sweep angles pulled in by 1-2 degrees relative to the parents.

resultInvalid: the tightened deck gap brought the rotor disk into collision with the deck/battery stack. This is the second time this generation a deck-gap cut below ~26 mm has killed a candidate, so the safe floor for deck gap looks like it sits closer to 28-30 mm; worth testing a milder deck-gap trim (27-28 mm) paired with the thicker plate to see if the thermal/rigidity gain survives without the clearance violation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.20
arm width	×0.95
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.15
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	24.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.17
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 5598a12c0ccc

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.23 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	148.3 g
material	petg
born	generation 8 via crossover

hypothesisOne parent was itself invalid and the other only mid-pack (6.49), so this was an exploratory cross testing whether switching to PETG with thinner, waisted arms could unlock a lighter frame class distinct from the carbon-fiber lineage that has dominated so far.

methodArm thickness reduced from 8.9 mm to 7.5 mm, front sweep shallowed from 41.2 to 35.7 degrees, arm waist loosened slightly, and the whole frame switched material from carbon-fiber plate to PETG.

resultInvalid: the main plate's web came out at only 1.23 mm against a structural minimum of 1.90 mm -- PETG's lower stiffness needed a thicker plate to compensate, and this genome didn't carry one. This confirms the material switch can't be paired blindly with carbon-fiber-tuned plate thickness genes; next worth trying PETG again but with plate thickness scaled up by roughly 50% to hit the wall-thickness floor.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.10
arm width	×1.32
arm waist	×0.63
arm thickness	7.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.7°
rear sweep	41.6°
plate length	×1.12
plate width	×0.86
deck gap	29.7 mm
battery wedge	8.8°
plate thickness	×1.31
material	petg

parents

candidate a673d06cc9f2

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	106.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 8 via crossover

hypothesisSame two solid parents as candidate 7d41c5bf7fcb (6.491, 6.461) were recombined a second way, this time betting that shrinking the deck gap and softening both sweep angles together would trim drag.

methodPlate width trimmed back toward the weaker parent, deck gap cut from 30.1 mm to 25.7 mm, and rear sweep shallowed from 43.2 to 40.6 degrees while front sweep increased slightly.

resultInvalid: rotor too close to deck/battery, the same failure mode as f47a31a3f356 earlier in this generation. Two independent crosses now confirm ~25-26 mm deck gap is inside the collision zone for this arm-length class; the safe experiment is to keep the sweep changes but leave deck gap at or above the 30 mm baseline.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.7°
rear sweep	40.6°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×1.07
deck gap	25.7 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×1.16
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a7e5fcb66d8d

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	105.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 8 via crossover

hypothesisPairing a solid performer (6.461) with the generation's best-so-far champion (6.412) was a direct attempt to fold the champion's front-sweep and material choices into a slightly longer-armed frame.

methodFront sweep shallowed to 30.0 degrees, arm length grown 14% versus the champion's shorter arms, plate width trimmed slightly, and material fraction dropped to the champion's near-zero level.

resultInvalid: arm root tongues collide on the main plate. The longer arms combined with the champion's shallow front sweep left insufficient clearance at the arm-to-plate joint, a geometric interaction neither parent alone exposed. This suggests arm length and front sweep are coupled genes here; next worth testing the champion's exact sweep with only a modest 5-6% arm-length increase to find where the collision threshold actually sits.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.14
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	35.8°
plate length	×1.12
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.98
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d39357c00a75

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	109.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 8 via crossover

hypothesisSelf-crossing the champion (6.412) with itself probed whether shallowing rear sweep and widening the plate slightly, isolated from any other change, could squeeze out a further gain from the best design so far.

methodRear sweep pulled in from 37.6 to 34.0 degrees, plate width widened 3%, and material fraction lowered slightly relative to the champion's baseline.

resultInvalid: rotor disks overlap (tip clearance). This is the third clearance failure this generation and pinpoints a specific coupling: the champion's rear sweep of ~37-38 degrees is apparently close to the minimum needed for rotor tip clearance at this arm length, so shallowing it to 34 degrees pushes disks into contact. Next worth testing rear sweep at an intermediate 36 degrees to map exactly where the clearance boundary sits.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.01
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.3°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.08
deck gap	30.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.36
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d60afe7b910enew best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.461 Wh/km
vs baseline	6.2% better
scenario mean	3.982 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.957 Wh/km
frame mass	107.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 6 via crossover

hypothesisf9862e99b160 (6.528) and 71f9b10676b2 (6.595) were both mid-pack, but each carried one promising trait; the bet was that combining thinner arm stock with a lighter plate could finally undercut the plateaued 6.466 leader.

methodThinned the arm tubing (4.3mm→4.0mm), reduced plate thickness (×1.10→×0.96), grew plate length slightly (×1.07→×1.13), and nudged the material blend fraction slightly (still carbon-fiber plate).

result6.461 Wh/km — a NEW WINNER, edging past the prior best-so-far of 6.466 and both parents. The combination of thinner arms and a lighter plate cut weight everywhere, with the biggest gain in storm (4.96), well below either parent's storm number. Worth testing: push arm thickness slightly below 4.0mm to see if structural margin still holds under storm loads.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.404	144.6	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.120	175.0	39.1°
crosswind	3.975	168.9	34.0°
gusty_light	3.807	161.7	32.7°
hot_thin	3.629	154.2	27.6°
storm	4.957	210.6	32.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.20
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.2°
rear sweep	35.8°
plate length	×1.13
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.96
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 81d8723d6e5f

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.483 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.9% better
scenario mean	3.995 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.975 Wh/km
frame mass	110.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 7 via crossover

hypothesisUsing the same parent pair as the sibling that failed on deck-gap clearance, this cross instead widens the deck gap moderately rather than tightening it, testing whether extra clearance margin combined with more composite material improves robustness without costing efficiency.

methodOpened deck gap slightly to 31.3mm (from 29.0mm), raised the material blend fraction to 0.12 (from 0.07), narrowed arm width marginally to 87%, and nudged front sweep up to 32.0°.

result6.483 Wh/km — a small, valid improvement over both parents (6.487, 6.528), still behind the 6.412 best-so-far but a clean incremental gain. Moderate deck-gap widening bought clearance margin without a real efficiency penalty, unlike its sibling's aggressive tightening which failed outright. Next: edge the material blend fraction a bit higher still, since this small bump seemed to help, before touching other genes.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.414	145.0	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.130	175.5	38.8°
crosswind	3.990	169.5	33.9°
gusty_light	3.820	162.3	32.5°
hot_thin	3.641	154.7	27.5°
storm	4.975	211.4	30.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.18
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	35.0°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	31.3 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.06
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 1168a75cc018

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.484 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.8% better
scenario mean	3.995 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.978 Wh/km
frame mass	109.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 7 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents sit near the top of the current elite cluster; this cross tests whether widening the arm slightly and stretching the plate further, while flattening front sweep, can push past them.

methodWidened arm to 94% (from 87%), flattened front sweep to 31.4° (from 33.2°), stretched plate length to 116% (from 113%), and shifted material fully to cf_plate.

result6.484 Wh/km — a small regression against both parents (6.461, 6.466) rather than a breakthrough, and still off the 6.412 best-so-far. The wider arm and longer plate likely added marginal mass the flatter sweep didn't offset. Teaches that this elite cluster's arm width and plate length are already close to a local optimum. Next: flatten front sweep alone against the unmodified parent genome to isolate whether sweep angle by itself is beneficial.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.407	144.7	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.141	175.9	39.2°
crosswind	3.991	169.5	34.2°
gusty_light	3.818	162.2	32.8°
hot_thin	3.635	154.4	27.6°
storm	4.978	211.5	32.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.20
arm width	×0.94
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.4°
rear sweep	35.8°
plate length	×1.16
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.95
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 3a014cf57ee0

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.490 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.8% better
scenario mean	4.000 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.981 Wh/km
frame mass	111.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 7 via crossover

hypothesisWith both parents already near-identical high performers, this cross makes a minimal single-trait tweak — a whisper of battery tilt — to test whether fine-grained wedge adjustment offers a free efficiency gain on an otherwise-converged genome.

methodKept every gene at the shared parent baseline and introduced only a barely-perceptible 0.2° battery wedge, up from perfectly flat.

result6.49 Wh/km — essentially flat versus both parents (6.487, 6.466), landing in between with no meaningful change, and still short of the 6.412 best-so-far. Confirms the battery wedge is near-irrelevant at these small magnitudes on this frame — the genome is converging and micro-mutations here aren't moving the needle. Next: instead of micro-tweaking wedge angle, try a larger step on a less-explored gene in this cluster, like material blend or plate thickness.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.418	145.2	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.135	175.7	39.0°
crosswind	3.997	169.8	33.9°
gusty_light	3.825	162.5	32.6°
hot_thin	3.646	154.9	27.5°
storm	4.981	211.6	31.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.18
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.5°
rear sweep	35.0°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	29.0 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×1.06
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 6efaa89a1475

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.491 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.7% better
scenario mean	4.000 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.982 Wh/km
frame mass	112.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 7 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents sat in the mid-6.5s with long arms and moderate rear sweep; this cross bets that pulling the arm back toward stock length while opening rear sweep and widening the plate can cut mass and drag together.

methodShortened arm length to near-stock (from the longer parent's 119%), opened rear sweep to 43° (from 36°), and widened the plate to 115% while trimming plate length back near stock.

result6.491 Wh/km — beats both parents (6.528, 6.539) but remains short of the 6.412 best-so-far, so no new winner. The shorter arm paired with more rear sweep likely cut mass without the drag penalty a longer arm carried. Worth testing: keep this shorter arm length but dial rear sweep back toward 36-38° to see if a less extreme angle captures more gain without any storm-scenario cost.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.425	145.5	25.4°
cold_headwind	4.131	175.5	38.4°
crosswind	3.985	169.3	33.4°
gusty_light	3.825	162.5	32.3°
hot_thin	3.652	155.2	27.4°
storm	4.982	211.6	29.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.01
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.2°
rear sweep	43.2°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×1.15
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×1.18
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate ab90f4d019fa

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.537 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.1% better
scenario mean	4.028 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.017 Wh/km
frame mass	115.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 7 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents were stuck in the mid-6.5s with slightly oversized plates; this cross probes whether stretching plate length further while narrowing plate width redistributes mass toward better aero balance.

methodLengthened the plate to 112% (from 107%) while trimming width back to stock (100%, from 103%), and nudged arm width marginally wider to 106%.

result6.537 Wh/km — essentially a wash between the two parents (6.528, 6.539) and nowhere near the 6.412 best-so-far. Stretching plate length while narrowing width appears to cancel out, netting no real gain. Teaches that plate aspect-ratio tweaks alone, without touching arm geometry, won't move this lineage off its plateau. Next: try shrinking overall plate length back toward stock instead of stretching it, since none of the frontrunners carry plates this long.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.443	146.3	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.165	176.9	38.9°
crosswind	4.023	170.9	33.9°
gusty_light	3.851	163.6	32.6°
hot_thin	3.672	156.0	27.5°
storm	5.017	213.1	31.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.11
arm width	×1.06
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.3°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.12
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×1.10
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 9d30a0e485e1

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.582 Wh/km
vs baseline	4.4% better
scenario mean	4.056 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.052 Wh/km
frame mass	117.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 7 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents were near the elite cluster of long, thin-armed frames; this cross tests whether nudging both sweep angles wider and thickening the arm slightly buys extra stiffness margin without hurting drag.

methodBumped front sweep to 36.3° and rear sweep to 37.8° (both wider than either parent), thickened the arm to 4.6mm, and shifted the material blend fully to cf_plate.

result6.582 Wh/km — worse than both parents (6.461, 6.487) and well off the 6.412 best-so-far, with every scenario degrading (storm rose to 5.05). This shows the elite cluster is already near a local optimum for arm thickness and sweep — widening both at once overshoots it. Next: vary only one of front/rear sweep at a time from the parent baseline to isolate which change actually hurts.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.464	147.2	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.205	178.6	39.2°
crosswind	4.048	172.0	34.1°
gusty_light	3.875	164.6	32.7°
hot_thin	3.693	156.9	27.6°
storm	5.052	214.6	32.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.20
arm width	×0.88
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.3°
rear sweep	37.8°
plate length	×1.14
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×0.96
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 7d332c7c589b

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.654 Wh/km
vs baseline	3.4% better
scenario mean	4.101 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.106 Wh/km
frame mass	118.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 7 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the current best-so-far frame with a weaker wide-plate lineage aims to test whether injecting some of the weaker parent's traits — shorter plate, wider deck gap — still preserves the champion's efficiency edge.

methodShrank plate length to 98% (from the champion parent's 107%), widened the deck gap notably to 33.5mm (from 29.4mm), relaxed the arm waist taper to 77% (from 70%), and shifted the material blend slightly.

result6.654 Wh/km — worse than both parents, including the 6.412 best-so-far it was crossed from, confirming the champion's tight 29.4mm deck gap and pinched arm waist are load-bearing traits, not incidental choices. Every scenario degraded (storm rose to 5.11). Next: recombine with the champion but vary only one trait at a time, starting with deck gap alone, to find which single change is most damaging.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.502	148.8	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.263	181.1	39.6°
crosswind	4.088	173.7	34.2°
gusty_light	3.915	166.3	33.0°
hot_thin	3.731	158.5	27.7°
storm	5.106	216.9	33.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.20
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.77
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.5°
rear sweep	34.1°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	33.5 mm
battery wedge	4.6°
plate thickness	×1.24
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 3177bdcfbc1f

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.802 Wh/km
vs baseline	1.2% better
scenario mean	4.192 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.221 Wh/km
frame mass	132.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 7 via crossover

hypothesisA second attempt at crossing the champion with the weaker wide-arm parent, this time testing whether thickening the arm and widening the plate can offset the deck-gap widening that hurt the previous sibling cross.

methodWidened the plate to 113%, thickened the arm to 4.8mm (from the champion's 4.0mm), widened the deck gap to 32.3mm (again away from the champion's 29.4mm), and flattened front sweep slightly to 30.1°.

result6.802 Wh/km — the worst result of the generation, degrading further than its sibling cross and far worse than both parents, with every scenario worsening in lockstep (storm hit 5.22). This confirms that moving deck gap away from the champion's tight 29.4mm value is consistently costly, and thickening the arm on top compounds the loss. Next: stop perturbing deck gap in this lineage — hold it fixed near 29-30mm and vary only plate or arm dimensions.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.573	151.8	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.351	184.8	39.3°
crosswind	4.192	178.1	34.3°
gusty_light	4.003	170.1	32.8°
hot_thin	3.810	161.9	27.7°
storm	5.221	221.8	32.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.19
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.69
arm thickness	4.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	30.1°
rear sweep	34.1°
plate length	×1.06
plate width	×1.13
deck gap	32.3 mm
battery wedge	4.8°
plate thickness	×1.17
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 558b1a7ddb64

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm resonance with rotor 1P
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	166.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 7 via immigrant

hypothesisWith the population plateaued in the mid-6.4-6.5 range on thin, long cf_plate arms, this immigrant probes the opposite corner: a stubbier, much thicker-armed frame with wide sweep angles and a steep battery wedge, betting that extra arm mass and plate area might unlock a different efficiency regime.

methodFresh random genome: arm shortened to 87% length but thickened to 7.7mm with a pinched waist, front/rear sweep both pushed out to 45-46°, plate enlarged to 108-110%, deck gap opened to 41.9mm, and a steep 10.8° battery wedge, cast in carbon-fiber plate.

resultKilled before flight — the short, thick-arm combination sits directly on a 1P rotor resonance frequency. This shows that thickening arms while shortening them shifts the natural frequency straight into the rotor's forcing band, a hazard the current thin-arm elites avoid by construction. Next: try a similarly thick 7-8mm arm at a longer length or different waist taper to detune from 1P before pairing it with wide sweep angles.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.87
arm width	×1.01
arm waist	×1.08
arm thickness	7.7 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	45.6°
rear sweep	40.1°
plate length	×1.08
plate width	×1.10
deck gap	41.9 mm
battery wedge	10.8°
plate thickness	×0.79
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate b9cf335c58f1

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	123.4 g
material	petg
born	generation 7 via immigrant

hypothesisWith elite lineages clustered around 33° sweep and 4mm-thin arms, this immigrant tests whether a much thicker PETG arm at near-elite sweep angles trades some efficiency for durability margin.

methodNear-stock arm length with 34° sweep front and rear (matching the elite range), but arm width/waist trimmed while thickness roughly doubled to 7.6mm, printed in PETG instead of carbon fiber, with a 36.8mm deck gap.

resultKilled before flight — the thick 7.6mm arm at 34° sweep pushes the rotor disks close enough together to overlap, violating tip clearance. This shows sweep angle interacts with arm thickness and deck gap on prop clearance, not just arm length alone. Next: retry a similarly thick PETG arm with a wider deck gap or shallower sweep to restore clearance margin.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.01
arm width	×0.93
arm waist	×0.68
arm thickness	7.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.1°
rear sweep	34.2°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.08
deck gap	36.8 mm
battery wedge	2.5°
plate thickness	×0.81
material	petg

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 11501a421b71

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	144.2 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 7 via immigrant

hypothesisTo counter the plateau around thin 4mm cf_plate arms, this immigrant tests an aggressively swept, short, thick-armed PETG frame with a tight deck gap, probing a structurally opposite region of the design space.

methodFresh random genome: arm shortened to 88% but thickened to 7.8mm and widened to 116%, both sweep angles pushed past 50°, plate shrunk in length but widened, deck gap tightened to 23.7mm, and a steep 9.9° battery wedge, all in PETG.

resultKilled before flight — the extreme sweep angles combined with the shortened, tightened geometry move the arm's mounting tongue clear of the main plate's bolt pattern, a manufacturing failure rather than a performance one. Teaches that sweep angles above roughly 45° need a compensating plate width or deck-gap adjustment to keep the bolt pattern aligned. Next: retry a similarly swept design but scale plate width in proportion to sweep angle so the tongue-bolt alignment survives.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.88
arm width	×1.16
arm waist	×1.04
arm thickness	7.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	50.7°
rear sweep	53.7°
plate length	×0.91
plate width	×1.16
deck gap	23.7 mm
battery wedge	9.9°
plate thickness	×1.01
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate b2a0e07f4c1e

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	115.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 7 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents were solid mid-6.5s performers; this cross tests whether tightening the deck gap further, past the champion's roughly 29.4mm baseline, can shave more mass and drag while widening the arm slightly for stiffness.

methodTightened deck gap to 27.7mm (from 30.1mm), widened arm width to 96% (from 87%), trimmed plate length to 104%, and nearly matched rear sweep at 35.8°.

resultKilled before flight — tightening the deck gap to 27.7mm brings the rotor disk too close to the deck/battery stack, violating clearance. This sets a lower bound on deck gap, showing the champion's roughly 29.4mm setting is already near the safe minimum rather than an arbitrary choice. Next: test deck gap values between 28-29mm to pin down exactly where the clearance boundary sits.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.19
arm width	×0.96
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.2°
rear sweep	35.8°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	27.7 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.10
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 91a0d5bb94ed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	170.5 g
material	petg
born	generation 7 via immigrant

hypothesisProbing yet another far corner of the design space, this immigrant tests a long, very wide, thick-armed frame with a tightly pinched waist and steep battery wedge, betting that extra arm mass and width could buy stiffness margin the plateaued elites lack.

methodFresh random genome: arm lengthened to 116% and widened dramatically to 133% with a tight waist pinch and heavy 8.9mm thickness, both sweep angles near 41-43°, plate stretched in length but narrowed in width and nominally thickened, with a steep 8.9° battery wedge, all in PETG.

resultKilled before flight — despite the plate thickness gene being scaled up, the resulting load-bearing web measured only 1.24mm versus the 1.90mm stock minimum, showing the narrowed plate width and pinched arm waist interact with the thickness gene in a way that leaves the web too thin. Teaches that plate thickness can't be evaluated in isolation from plate width and waist geometry. Next: retest a similarly heavy-arm design with plate width closer to stock to confirm the web-thinning was driven by the width squeeze rather than the thickness gene itself.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.16
arm width	×1.33
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	8.9 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	41.2°
rear sweep	43.3°
plate length	×1.12
plate width	×0.86
deck gap	29.7 mm
battery wedge	8.9°
plate thickness	×1.30
material	petg

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 50e6dee87d3anew best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.466 Wh/km
vs baseline	6.1% better
scenario mean	3.985 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.962 Wh/km
frame mass	109.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 5 via crossover

hypothesisA champion-tier parent (6.552) was crossed with an untested candidate, betting there was still headroom left in the champion lineage for marginal thinning after a good run this generation.

methodThinned the arm walls slightly, narrowed arm width a touch, trimmed rear sweep marginally, and shortened arm length slightly.

resultScored 6.466 -- a NEW WINNER, beating every prior best-so-far this generation including the 6.528 mark. All six scenarios improved by a small uniform margin, suggesting the combined trims cut mass/drag broadly without hitting a structural floor. Worth continuing to thin arm thickness incrementally from 4.1 mm while watching for the point it becomes structurally invalid.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.406	144.7	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.122	175.1	38.9°
crosswind	3.976	168.9	33.9°
gusty_light	3.809	161.8	32.6°
hot_thin	3.632	154.3	27.5°
storm	4.962	210.8	31.3°

gene	value
arm length	×1.18
arm width	×0.86
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.5°
rear sweep	35.0°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	30.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.06
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 0b455cc0f748

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.487 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.8% better
scenario mean	3.997 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.980 Wh/km
frame mass	110.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 6 via crossover

hypothesis89bafd954020 (6.547) was crossed with e69646c004a3, a candidate that had itself been invalid; the bet was that 89bafd954020's genes could still rescue a viable, competitive offspring from that pairing.

methodWidened the arm slightly (×0.87→×0.98), shortened the plate back toward parity (×1.07→×1.00), reduced plate thickness (×1.15→×1.05), and pulled front sweep back (31.7°→30.0°).

resultValid at 6.487, an improvement over parent 89bafd954020 but still short of the 6.412 best-so-far. The rescue worked in the sense of producing a viable, mid-pack frame, showing 89bafd954020's genes dominate this cross. Worth testing: cross 89bafd954020 with the new 056184de8923 winner now that a stronger partner exists.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.410	144.8	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.142	176.0	39.2°
crosswind	3.991	169.5	34.0°
gusty_light	3.820	162.3	32.8°
hot_thin	3.638	154.6	27.6°
storm	4.980	211.5	32.3°

gene	value
arm length	×1.22
arm width	×0.98
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	0.3°
plate thickness	×1.05
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a1df3773912d

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.487 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.8% better
scenario mean	3.998 Wh/km
worst scenario	4.979 Wh/km
frame mass	111.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 6 via crossover

hypothesis50e6dee87d3a (6.466) and 89bafd954020 (6.547) were paired on the bet that a very small arm-width and deck-gap nudge from the weaker parent might still improve on the stronger parent alone.

methodWidened the arm marginally (×0.86→×0.89) and tightened the deck gap slightly (30.2mm→29.0mm), with arm thickness essentially unchanged.

result6.487, nearly identical to 0b455cc0f748 and worse than the 6.412 best-so-far. The tiny gene nudges barely moved fitness, suggesting this region of the search space is fairly flat around 50e6dee87d3a's configuration. Worth testing: a larger-magnitude mutation on arm width or deck gap from this same base, since micro-nudges aren't differentiating outcomes.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.416	145.1	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.134	175.6	39.0°
crosswind	3.992	169.6	33.9°
gusty_light	3.822	162.4	32.6°
hot_thin	3.644	154.8	27.5°
storm	4.979	211.5	31.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.18
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.5°
rear sweep	35.0°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	29.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.06
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate f9862e99b160new best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.528 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.2% better
scenario mean	4.023 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.009 Wh/km
frame mass	114.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 5 via crossover

hypothesisOne of the tied-best parents (6.547) was self-crossed, essentially a fine-tuning mutation, betting that a full switch to the lighter plate material plus small sweep and thickness tweaks could edge past the current best.

methodSwitched material fully to cf_plate, increased front sweep slightly, and thinned the plate a bit.

resultScored 6.528 -- a NEW WINNER, beating the prior best-so-far of 6.547. Every scenario improved by a small, uniform margin, suggesting the full material switch plus modest thinning cut mass/drag broadly rather than fixing one weather condition. Worth pushing plate thickness down and front sweep up further from this new baseline.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.438	146.0	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.159	176.7	38.8°
crosswind	4.018	170.7	33.9°
gusty_light	3.846	163.4	32.6°
hot_thin	3.666	155.8	27.5°
storm	5.009	212.8	31.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.19
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.2°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×1.10
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 6d9a8f3e0bc1

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.539 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.0% better
scenario mean	4.030 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.020 Wh/km
frame mass	114.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 6 via crossover

hypothesisf9862e99b160 (6.528) and 50e6dee87d3a (6.466, the pool's best) were close in fitness; the bet was that splitting the difference on arm geometry could land between them or edge past the leader.

methodWidened the arms slightly (×0.87→×1.04), shortened them a touch (×1.19→×1.11), and trimmed plate width (×1.06→×1.03).

resultCame in at 6.539, between the two parents but still short of the 6.466 best-so-far, so no new winner. Widening the arm while shortening it seems to have been a wash — extra frontal area offset the weight saved from the shorter arm. Worth testing: the shorter arm length paired with the original narrower arm width instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.443	146.3	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.171	177.2	39.1°
crosswind	4.020	170.8	33.9°
gusty_light	3.852	163.6	32.7°
hot_thin	3.672	156.0	27.6°
storm	5.020	213.2	31.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.11
arm width	×1.04
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.3°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×1.10
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 1ae7f66cd948

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.586 Wh/km
vs baseline	4.4% better
scenario mean	4.058 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.056 Wh/km
frame mass	120.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 6 via crossover

hypothesis71f9b10676b2 (6.595) and 89bafd954020 (6.547) hadn't yet tried a narrower arm width together; the bet was that combining the parents' shared thick-plate profile with a slimmer arm might claw back some efficiency.

methodNarrowed arm width (×0.85→×0.75), widened arm waist (×0.55→×0.64), and shaved plate length slightly (×0.97→×0.96) while nudging plate width up.

result6.586, between the two parents but well short of the fresh 6.412 best-so-far. The waist widening likely added back drag that the narrower arm width was supposed to save. Worth testing: keep the narrow arm width but leave arm waist untouched, to isolate whether waist or width drove the regression.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.468	147.3	25.4°
cold_headwind	4.196	178.3	38.5°
crosswind	4.049	172.0	33.5°
gusty_light	3.880	164.8	32.4°
hot_thin	3.700	157.2	27.4°
storm	5.056	214.8	30.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.13
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.64
arm thickness	4.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.2°
rear sweep	37.5°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.04
deck gap	30.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.36
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 1bcf9c39a3df

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.631 Wh/km
vs baseline	3.7% better
scenario mean	4.088 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.087 Wh/km
frame mass	119.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 6 via crossover

hypothesisc9cf7c11f59f (6.547) and 50e6dee87d3a (6.466) were combined on the bet that adding battery wedge to the leader's proven geometry might rebalance weight and cut a scenario or two's losses.

methodAdded a battery wedge (0°→4.8°), thickened the plate (×1.05→×1.24), and pulled rear sweep back slightly (35.5°→34.0°).

result6.631, worse than either parent and the 6.412 best-so-far. The battery wedge plus thicker plate added mass without a clear payoff, with crosswind (4.08) and storm (5.09) both elevated. Worth testing: battery wedge in isolation, without the plate-thickness increase, since wedge alone hasn't been tested cleanly on this base geometry.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.497	148.6	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.231	179.8	39.1°
crosswind	4.080	173.3	34.1°
gusty_light	3.905	165.9	32.7°
hot_thin	3.725	158.3	27.6°
storm	5.087	216.1	32.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.19
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.70
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.6°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	29.4 mm
battery wedge	4.8°
plate thickness	×1.24
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a94a56bc9f09

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.788 Wh/km
vs baseline	1.4% better
scenario mean	4.183 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.210 Wh/km
frame mass	132.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 6 via crossover

hypothesisParents d3770c40a877 (6.692) and f9862e99b160 (6.528) both carried extra plate margin; the bet was that combining the sturdier parent's mass distribution with the lighter parent's arm geometry might trim drag while keeping stiffness.

methodIncreased plate thickness further (×1.16→×1.44), added a slight battery wedge (0°→2.9°), swept the rear arms further back (36.6°→41.3°), and tightened the deck gap (35.2mm→31.1mm).

resultLanded at 6.788 Wh/km, worse than both parents and far off the 6.466 best-so-far — no new winner. The extra plate mass and steeper rear sweep likely added drag/weight across all six scenarios without a compensating benefit, worst in storm (5.21). Worth testing: isolate the rear-sweep change alone, without the plate-thickness increase, to find which gene is the actual culprit.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.571	151.7	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.341	184.4	39.4°
crosswind	4.179	177.5	34.2°
gusty_light	3.994	169.7	32.9°
hot_thin	3.806	161.7	27.7°
storm	5.210	221.3	32.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.3°
rear sweep	41.3°
plate length	×1.06
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	31.1 mm
battery wedge	2.9°
plate thickness	×1.44
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 939d4b0bcd16

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.881 Wh/km
vs baseline	0.1% better
scenario mean	4.241 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.281 Wh/km
frame mass	137.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 6 via crossover

hypothesis412f5906d4ae (6.873) was a weaker parent but contributed thicker arms and wider plates; the bet was that pairing its structural mass with 89bafd954020's (6.547) better wedge/gap tuning could offset the weak parent's penalty.

methodWidened the deck gap (31.0mm→36.2mm), pulled back plate width slightly (×1.22→×1.15), increased battery wedge (1.5°→3.3°), and grew plate length (×1.15→×1.16).

result6.881, worse than both parents and the 6.466 best-so-far. The heavy-arm parent's penalty wasn't rescued by the gap/wedge tuning — storm (5.28) was hit hardest, suggesting the thicker arm stock simply adds too much mass. Worth testing: keep 89bafd954020's thinner arms and only borrow this cross's deck-gap/wedge values.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.619	153.7	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.405	187.1	39.2°
crosswind	4.236	179.9	34.3°
gusty_light	4.048	172.0	32.9°
hot_thin	3.856	163.8	27.7°
storm	5.281	224.3	33.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.07
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.65
arm thickness	5.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.0°
rear sweep	40.6°
plate length	×1.16
plate width	×1.15
deck gap	36.2 mm
battery wedge	3.3°
plate thickness	×1.08
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 0744daafc6e2✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.943 Wh/km
vs baseline	0.8% worse
scenario mean	4.277 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.332 Wh/km
frame mass	142.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 6 via designer

hypothesisLearning from the two overly-heavy designer attempts already tried this generation, this bet moderated arm thickness while pushing sweep angles more aggressively, testing whether sweep geometry alone could unlock efficiency without full arm-thickness commitment.

methodBuilt from scratch with moderate arms (5.5mm), steep sweeps (front 38.0°, rear 43.0°), larger plates (×1.20 length, ×1.18 width), and no plate-thickness surplus (×1.00).

result6.943, better than the other two designer attempts this generation but still well behind the 6.412 best-so-far and every viable crossover. Moderating arm thickness helped, but the very steep 43° rear sweep likely still added drag, particularly visible in storm (5.33). Worth testing: the same plate/sweep profile but with arm thickness dropped to the ~4mm range crossovers have shown works best.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.640	154.6	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.456	189.3	39.7°
crosswind	4.271	181.4	34.5°
gusty_light	4.081	173.4	33.1°
hot_thin	3.883	164.9	27.8°
storm	5.332	226.5	34.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.10
arm width	×0.95
arm waist	×0.65
arm thickness	5.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	38.0°
rear sweep	43.0°
plate length	×1.20
plate width	×1.18
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 7b8317ed444b✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	7.262 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.4% worse
scenario mean	4.471 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.581 Wh/km
frame mass	166.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 6 via designer

hypothesisWith the population plateaued near 6.4-6.5, the designer proposed a deliberately heavier, stiffer frame betting that raw structural robustness might reduce storm-scenario losses enough to offset the weight penalty elsewhere.

methodBuilt from scratch with thick arms (6.0mm), enlarged plates (×1.15 length, ×1.13 width, ×1.20 thickness), and steep sweeps (front 36.5°, rear 41.0°).

result7.262, far worse than the 6.412 best-so-far and every crossover candidate this generation. The extra structural mass dominated every scenario, including storm (5.58), which was supposed to be its strength. Lesson: this problem is weight-limited, not strength-limited, at the fitness levels already reached. Worth testing: a designer proposal that keeps arms thin (~4mm) but explores an untried gene combination like an extreme sweep angle.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.800	161.4	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.669	198.3	40.0°
crosswind	4.463	189.6	34.7°
gusty_light	4.261	181.0	33.3°
hot_thin	4.054	172.2	27.9°
storm	5.581	237.1	35.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×1.00
arm waist	×0.85
arm thickness	6.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	36.5°
rear sweep	41.0°
plate length	×1.15
plate width	×1.13
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.20
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate ed5a193d02ea✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	7.377 Wh/km
vs baseline	7.1% worse
scenario mean	4.543 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.669 Wh/km
frame mass	173.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 6 via designer

hypothesisBuilding on the same stiffness bet as the prior designer entry, this went even further on arm thickness plus added battery wedge, hypothesizing the wedge could compensate for weight via better distribution in headwind/storm.

methodBuilt from scratch with thick arms (6.5mm), moderate sweeps (34°/38°), and a 3.0° battery wedge.

result7.377, the worst result of the generation, well below the 6.412 best-so-far. Thicker arms than even the previous designer attempt made things worse, confirming the weight-limited hypothesis from 7b8317ed444b. Worth testing: designer proposals should start from the current best-so-far's arm thickness (~4mm) rather than exploring the heavy end of the range.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.858	163.9	25.8°
cold_headwind	4.753	201.9	40.3°
crosswind	4.536	192.7	34.9°
gusty_light	4.327	183.8	33.4°
hot_thin	4.115	174.8	28.0°
storm	5.669	240.8	36.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.20
arm width	×1.05
arm waist	×0.85
arm thickness	6.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.0°
rear sweep	38.0°
plate length	×1.08
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	3.0°
plate thickness	×1.15
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate bd9d3434a36d

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	113.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 6 via crossover

hypothesis50e6dee87d3a (6.466) was self-paired to explore its own local neighborhood, betting that a steeper front sweep and tighter deck gap could squeeze out more efficiency from an already-strong design.

methodIncreased front sweep (31.5°→35.9°), shrank the deck gap substantially (30.2mm→25.7mm), and thickened the plate (×1.06→×1.21).

resultInvalid — rotor too close to deck/battery. Tightening the deck gap by 4.5mm crossed the rotor clearance constraint, so this design never flew. Lesson: deck gap has a hard floor near 26-28mm for this frame family and shouldn't be shrunk alongside a front-sweep increase. Worth testing: the front-sweep increase alone, without touching deck gap.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.17
arm width	×0.86
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	35.9°
rear sweep	35.0°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	25.7 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.21
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b3151e8e8a36

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	108.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 6 via crossover

hypothesis50e6dee87d3a (6.466) and f9862e99b160 (6.528) were bred on the bet that a longer arm plus tighter deck gap could reduce drag while keeping the proven rear-sweep value.

methodShrank the deck gap sharply (30.2mm→22.2mm), lengthened the arm (×1.18→×1.21), and pulled rear sweep back (35.0°→34.0°).

resultInvalid — deck gap too small for the FC/ESC stack. An 8mm deck-gap cut was too aggressive, echoing the same failure mode as bd9d3434a36d. Lesson: deck gap below roughly 26-28mm collides with onboard electronics regardless of arm-length changes. Worth testing: the arm-length and rear-sweep changes alone, holding deck gap at or above 30mm.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.21
arm width	×0.86
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.4°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	22.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.06
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 89bafd954020new best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.547 Wh/km
vs baseline	4.9% better
scenario mean	4.034 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.025 Wh/km
frame mass	116.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 4 via crossover

hypothesisCrossed strong performer 1e1a58d2ae26 (6.552) with solid a76a6566ac11 (6.705), betting that a small extra dose of plate thickness for stiffness margin, paired with slightly thinner and narrower-waisted arms, could trim mass without tripping the thin-plate constraint that was killing so many siblings this generation.

methodPlate thickness increased slightly from ×1.06 to ×1.15, arm thickness thinned marginally from 4.5 mm to 4.3 mm, arm width widened a touch, with rear sweep essentially unchanged.

result6.547 Wh/km is a NEW WINNER, edging out the prior best-so-far (held by c9cf7c11f59f, also ~6.547) and beating both parents outright. The win looks like fine-tuning rather than a leap: a slightly heavier plate paired with a slightly lighter, narrower arm nearly cancel in mass while easing local stress enough to dodge the plate-thinness trap that invalidated four other candidates this generation. Storm remains the weak point at 5.03 Wh/km, so worth testing next: push arm thickness down further from this exact base while holding plate thickness at ×1.15.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.444	146.3	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.171	177.2	38.8°
crosswind	4.033	171.3	33.9°
gusty_light	3.858	163.9	32.5°
hot_thin	3.675	156.1	27.5°
storm	5.025	213.5	31.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.19
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.7°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×1.15
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate c9cf7c11f59fnew best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.547 Wh/km
vs baseline	4.9% better
scenario mean	4.036 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.023 Wh/km
frame mass	112.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 3 via crossover

hypothesisThe current best-so-far, 1e1a58d2ae26 (6.552), still ran with zero battery tilt and a loose arm waist; crossing it with the weak 15c422327b08 line bets that borrowing a modest battery wedge and a thinner arm wall can trim drag and mass further.

methodAdded a modest battery wedge (0°→4.7°), loosened the arm waist taper (×0.55→×0.71), thinned the arm wall from 4.5 mm to 4.0 mm, and nudged front sweep out (31.5°→32.5°).

resultValid at 6.547 — a NEW WINNER, edging out both the prior best-so-far (6.552) and both parents. The combination of a small battery tilt and a thinner arm wall likely cut drag and mass while the loosened waist taper kept enough stiffness to avoid failure. Worth testing: sweep battery wedge in the 3-6° band around this design to pin down the true optimum.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.450	146.6	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.181	177.6	39.3°
crosswind	4.029	171.2	34.1°
gusty_light	3.855	163.8	32.8°
hot_thin	3.676	156.2	27.6°
storm	5.023	213.4	32.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.19
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.71
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.5°
rear sweep	35.5°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	29.4 mm
battery wedge	4.7°
plate thickness	×1.05
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 6a3d68fd906b

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.568 Wh/km
vs baseline	4.6% better
scenario mean	4.048 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.041 Wh/km
frame mass	117.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 5 via crossover

hypothesisThe same pair of champions was crossed the other direction, betting that going fully to the lighter plate material plus a slightly longer plate and less rear sweep would trim drag beyond either parent.

methodSwitched material fully to cf_plate, lengthened the main plate, and reduced rear sweep slightly.

resultCame in at 6.568, close to but not beating either parent or the 6.547 best-so-far. The plate lengthening likely added just enough mass or drag to erase the benefit of the sweep reduction. Worth retrying the material switch and sweep reduction without the plate lengthening.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.457	146.9	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.188	177.9	38.9°
crosswind	4.045	171.8	34.0°
gusty_light	3.869	164.4	32.6°
hot_thin	3.687	156.6	27.5°
storm	5.041	214.1	31.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.19
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.5°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.10
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	30.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.07
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 71f9b10676b2

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.595 Wh/km
vs baseline	4.2% better
scenario mean	4.064 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.063 Wh/km
frame mass	121.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 5 via crossover

hypothesisThe same champion lineage (6.552) was crossed with an untested candidate, betting that thicker plates combined with a shorter plate length could offset each other's mass and stiffness tradeoffs.

methodThickened the plate substantially, shortened plate length, shortened arm length slightly, and increased front sweep.

resultScored 6.595, worse than its parent and well off the new best of 6.466. The plate thickening added more mass/drag than the length reduction saved, showing this lineage is drag-limited by plate mass rather than helped by compensating length cuts. Worth trying further plate thinning from the new 6.466 champion instead of thickening.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.471	147.5	25.4°
cold_headwind	4.204	178.6	38.6°
crosswind	4.054	172.2	33.5°
gusty_light	3.885	165.0	32.4°
hot_thin	3.704	157.4	27.4°
storm	5.063	215.1	30.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.13
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.2°
rear sweep	37.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	30.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.35
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 203a5f646386

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.635 Wh/km
vs baseline	3.7% better
scenario mean	4.088 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.094 Wh/km
frame mass	122.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 5 via crossover

hypothesisA champion-tier parent (6.552) was crossed with a mid-pack parent (6.654), betting that the champion's slender-arm design could absorb some of the mid-pack parent's wider, thicker plate traits.

methodWidened the plate, thickened it, opened the deck gap slightly, and trimmed rear sweep.

resultScored 6.635, landing between the two parents but worse than the top parent alone. The added plate width and thickness cost more than they gained, confirming this lineage prefers thin, narrow plates. Worth retrying with the champion's original plate dimensions but keeping just the reduced rear sweep.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.486	148.1	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.234	179.9	38.9°
crosswind	4.087	173.6	34.0°
gusty_light	3.907	166.0	32.6°
hot_thin	3.720	158.0	27.5°
storm	5.094	216.4	31.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.21
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.6°
rear sweep	34.5°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.16
deck gap	31.3 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.14
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b324108bd3fb

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.637 Wh/km
vs baseline	3.6% better
scenario mean	4.090 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.093 Wh/km
frame mass	122.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 5 via crossover

hypothesisThe top performer (6.547) was crossed again with the persistently weak 7.139 parent, betting its steeper battery wedge and narrower arms might still combine well with the champion's core.

methodIncreased battery wedge tilt, narrowed the arms, thickened the arm walls slightly, and lengthened the arms.

resultScored 6.637, worse than the champion parent and far from the generation's new best of 6.466. The weak parent's traits diluted the champion lineage's efficiency yet again, confirming that lineage underperforms in every cross this generation. Worth abandoning crosses with this weak parent and focusing recombination within the top-performing lineage instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.491	148.3	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.235	179.9	38.9°
crosswind	4.090	173.8	33.9°
gusty_light	3.909	166.1	32.6°
hot_thin	3.723	158.2	27.6°
storm	5.093	216.4	31.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.24
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.5°
rear sweep	35.9°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	30.4 mm
battery wedge	3.1°
plate thickness	×1.14
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d3770c40a877

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.692 Wh/km
vs baseline	2.8% better
scenario mean	4.122 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.141 Wh/km
frame mass	124.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 5 via crossover

hypothesisThe top performer (6.547) was crossed with a lagging parent (6.8), betting the champion's core geometry could absorb the laggard's longer arms and wider deck gap without losing much efficiency.

methodLengthened the arms further, widened them slightly, opened the deck gap, and nudged front sweep up marginally.

resultScored 6.692, worse than the champion parent alone. Extending arm length and deck gap added enough mass/drag to erase the champion's edge, confirming its compact arm length was close to optimal already. Worth testing the laggard's front-sweep nudge alone on the champion's unmodified arm length.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.501	148.7	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.298	182.6	39.6°
crosswind	4.118	175.0	34.4°
gusty_light	3.935	167.2	33.0°
hot_thin	3.737	158.8	27.8°
storm	5.141	218.4	33.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.93
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.2°
rear sweep	36.6°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	35.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.16
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 9f193ade7d89

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.811 Wh/km
vs baseline	1.1% better
scenario mean	4.198 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.226 Wh/km
frame mass	132.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 5 via mutation

hypothesisA lagging lineage (6.8) was mutated on the bet that opening up the gap between the deck and props was the limiting factor holding back its efficiency.

methodIncreased the deck gap by about 2.6 mm, leaving everything else unchanged.

resultScored 6.811, essentially flat versus the 6.8 parent. This confirms deck gap isn't the bottleneck for this lineage -- the heavier arm waist and thicker plates are the more likely drag/mass drivers. Worth mutating arm waist or plate thickness on this lineage instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.586	152.3	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.360	185.2	39.2°
crosswind	4.189	178.0	34.3°
gusty_light	4.007	170.2	32.8°
hot_thin	3.819	162.2	27.7°
storm	5.226	222.0	32.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.08
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.63
arm thickness	5.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.0°
rear sweep	40.7°
plate length	×1.15
plate width	×1.12
deck gap	34.6 mm
battery wedge	3.6°
plate thickness	×1.08
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 412f5906d4ae

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.873 Wh/km
vs baseline	0.2% better
scenario mean	4.236 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.274 Wh/km
frame mass	138.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 5 via crossover

hypothesisThe same lagging lineage (6.8) was self-crossed, betting that a wider plate combined with a shallower battery wedge angle would cut drag.

methodWidened the main plate further, reduced battery wedge tilt, loosened the arm waist slightly, and tightened the deck gap.

resultScored 6.873, worse than the 6.8 parent. The wider plate likely added frontal area and mass that outweighed any benefit from the shallower wedge angle. Teaches this lineage doesn't tolerate a wider plate; worth testing a narrower plate paired with just the lower battery wedge angle.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.617	153.7	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.390	186.5	39.2°
crosswind	4.234	179.9	34.2°
gusty_light	4.045	171.9	32.8°
hot_thin	3.855	163.8	27.7°
storm	5.274	224.1	32.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.08
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.66
arm thickness	5.4 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.0°
rear sweep	40.7°
plate length	×1.15
plate width	×1.22
deck gap	31.0 mm
battery wedge	1.5°
plate thickness	×1.08
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 6c59f94f5dd5

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	7.126 Wh/km
vs baseline	3.5% worse
scenario mean	4.388 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.475 Wh/km
frame mass	142.3 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 5 via crossover

hypothesisOne parent was tied for best-so-far while the other lagged badly at 7.139; the bet was that blending them would keep the strong parent's efficiency while nudging sweep and arm proportions further.

methodSlightly reduced rear sweep, tightened the arm waist, trimmed plate width a touch, and lengthened the arms, on a pa12_cf frame.

resultLanded at 7.126 -- almost exactly the weak parent's score and nowhere near the strong parent's 6.547, so no new record. The cross pulled toward the underperforming parent's material and geometry instead of inheriting the good parent's traits. Worth testing the same tweaks on a cf_plate frame instead of pa12_cf.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.697	157.0	26.0°
cold_headwind	4.654	197.7	41.2°
crosswind	4.392	186.6	35.8°
gusty_light	4.172	177.2	34.1°
hot_thin	3.941	167.4	28.4°
storm	5.475	232.6	40.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.24
arm width	×0.99
arm waist	×0.93
arm thickness	7.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.8°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	33.9 mm
battery wedge	4.3°
plate thickness	×1.05
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 5fdc8f9feb1b

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	147.4 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 5 via crossover

hypothesisThe weak 7.139 parent was crossed with an untested candidate on the bet that thinner plates plus thicker, less-swept arms could shave weight without sacrificing stiffness.

methodThinned the plates, thickened the arms, reduced rear sweep, and tilted the battery wedge up a bit more.

resultInvalid: the arm root tongues collide on the main plate. The reduced rear sweep combined with the arm changes pushed the tongue geometry into interference with the plate. Teaches that sweep reductions on this lineage need a matching plate footprint change; next worth widening plate length whenever rear sweep drops this much.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.23
arm width	×0.99
arm waist	×0.95
arm thickness	8.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.8°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	34.6 mm
battery wedge	5.2°
plate thickness	×0.83
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 78e246731fc8

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	151.7 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 5 via crossover

hypothesisA mid-pack performer (6.627) was crossed with an untested candidate, betting that loosening the arm waist and thinning the arms could trim mass further on top of an already aggressive rear-sweep design.

methodWidened the arm waist, thinned the arm walls slightly, increased battery wedge tilt, and lengthened the arms a bit.

resultInvalid: the arm tongue bolts miss the main plate. The extreme rear sweep (over 60 degrees) combined with the longer arms shifted the tongues past the plate's bolt pattern. Teaches this lineage's rear sweep is already near a geometric limit; next worth retrying the same waist/thickness change with rear sweep dialed back toward 45-50 degrees.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.10
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.85
arm thickness	7.9 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	40.5°
rear sweep	60.6°
plate length	×1.15
plate width	×1.04
deck gap	43.6 mm
battery wedge	3.6°
plate thickness	×0.96
material	pet_cf

parents

candidate e69646c004a3

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	87.0 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 5 via crossover

hypothesisTwo nearly tied champions (6.547 and 6.552) were crossed on the bet that shorter, stiffer arms with thicker plates could squeeze out further gains from an already strong design.

methodShortened the arms substantially, thickened the plates a lot, increased battery wedge tilt, and shifted the material blend.

resultInvalid: rotor disks overlap on tip clearance. Shortening the arms past a threshold left too little room between propellers. Teaches arm length has a hard floor set by rotor diameter for this frame; next worth keeping arm length shrink modest while still testing the thicker-plate and battery-wedge combination.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.88
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	30.6°
rear sweep	35.9°
plate length	×1.12
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	2.6°
plate thickness	×1.40
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate f97426ea97fc

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.6 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	105.7 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 5 via crossover

hypothesisThe weak 7.139 parent was crossed with an untested candidate, betting that aggressively widening the arms and thinning the plates would cut enough mass to overcome its poor baseline.

methodWidened the arms, loosened the arm waist, thinned the plates significantly, and adjusted plate length.

resultInvalid: plates fell below the minimum thickness allowed for pa12_cf material. The thinning combination landed right at the material's structural floor. Teaches pa12_cf has a strict minimum plate thickness that's easy to breach when stacking thinning mutations; worth rerunning the same geometry on cf_plate, which likely tolerates thinner plates.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.16
arm width	×0.98
arm waist	×0.68
arm thickness	6.4 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	39.1°
rear sweep	39.6°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	27.1 mm
battery wedge	10.4°
plate thickness	×0.79
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 1e1a58d2ae26new best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.552 Wh/km
vs baseline	4.9% better
scenario mean	4.037 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.030 Wh/km
frame mass	115.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 2 via crossover

hypothesisParent 8e06d4306a70 had solid proportions but relatively thick arms; the bet was that a self-cross exploring a much thinner arm wall could shed mass-driven power draw without failing structurally.

methodSelf-crossover cut arm thickness sharply to 4.5 mm from 6.0 mm, while widening the plate about 6% and lengthening it about 7% to compensate.

result6.552 Wh/km — a clear NEW WINNER and the best of the generation, a solid drop from the 6.719 record set earlier. The thinner arms cut power draw in every scenario without tripping a structural invalid, so there's likely still headroom to shed weight; worth pushing arm thickness even lower next, watching for the plate-web-too-thin failure seen elsewhere this generation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.445	146.3	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.183	177.7	39.0°
crosswind	4.032	171.3	33.9°
gusty_light	3.859	163.9	32.7°
hot_thin	3.675	156.1	27.6°
storm	5.030	213.7	31.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.19
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.5°
rear sweep	35.6°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	30.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.06
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 305d09e58ec7

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.627 Wh/km
vs baseline	3.8% better
scenario mean	4.084 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.086 Wh/km
frame mass	108.0 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 4 via crossover

hypothesisParent cb6b6c5540f9 (6.719) was solid but not exceptional; paired with a much weaker 09309f9a3ffc (7.79) mainly for diversity, the bet was that a sharply tighter arm waist plus a trimmed sweep/battery tilt could cut mass and drag beyond what either parent achieved alone.

methodArm waist tightened sharply (roughly ×0.81 to ×0.55) while arm width widened slightly, and both front sweep and battery wedge were trimmed a couple of degrees.

result6.627 Wh/km clearly beats both parents (6.719 and 7.79) but still trails the 6.547 best-so-far by about 0.08. The tighter waist likely cut mass without tripping the thin-plate limits that killed several other candidates this generation. Worth testing next: layer this waist-tightening onto the new champion's plate-thickness recipe to see if the gains stack.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.455	146.8	25.8°
cold_headwind	4.289	182.2	39.9°
crosswind	4.095	174.0	34.8°
gusty_light	3.895	165.5	33.3°
hot_thin	3.683	156.5	28.0°
storm	5.086	216.1	35.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.10
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	6.9 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	39.0°
plate length	×1.06
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.3 mm
battery wedge	9.2°
plate thickness	×1.01
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 838da14e4706

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.654 Wh/km
vs baseline	3.4% better
scenario mean	4.101 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.106 Wh/km
frame mass	120.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 4 via crossover

hypothesisCrossed the incumbent champion c9cf7c11f59f (6.547) with mid-pack a76a6566ac11 (6.705), betting that easing the battery tilt and trimming plate width/arm length slightly would shed a bit more mass from the champion's frame.

methodBattery wedge reduced from 4.0° to 1.7°, plate width trimmed from ×1.12 to ×1.09, and arm length shortened from ×1.05 to ×1.02, with material shifting within cf_plate variants.

result6.654 Wh/km beats the weaker parent but is a clear step down from the champion (6.547), so the trims diluted rather than improved its recipe — reducing battery wedge in particular likely cost some aerodynamic benefit the champion relied on. Next: retry mixing with the champion but hold battery wedge fixed to isolate whether the wedge angle or the plate/arm trims caused the regression.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.503	148.8	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.254	180.7	39.0°
crosswind	4.091	173.8	34.0°
gusty_light	3.917	166.4	32.7°
hot_thin	3.733	158.6	27.6°
storm	5.106	216.9	32.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.02
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.62
arm thickness	5.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.5°
rear sweep	42.7°
plate length	×1.17
plate width	×1.09
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	1.7°
plate thickness	×0.95
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b135fda4746b

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.800 Wh/km
vs baseline	1.3% better
scenario mean	4.191 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.217 Wh/km
frame mass	131.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 4 via crossover

hypothesisCrossed two mid-pack performers (a76a6566ac11 6.705, 30f7b0f6b0b7 6.755), betting that thicker plates plus slightly longer arms and reduced rear sweep would combine their separate strengths.

methodPlate thickness increased from ×0.95 to ×1.08, rear sweep reduced from 43.0° to 40.7°, and arm length lengthened from ×1.05 to ×1.08, with material shifting within the cf_plate family.

result6.8 Wh/km is worse than either parent, so the cross compounded their shared mediocrity rather than their strengths — the extra plate mass likely outweighed any drag benefit from the reduced sweep. Next: test the reduced rear sweep alone against a stronger base genome rather than pairing two mid-pack parents.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.582	152.2	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.349	184.8	39.2°
crosswind	4.182	177.7	34.2°
gusty_light	4.001	170.0	32.8°
hot_thin	3.815	162.1	27.7°
storm	5.217	221.6	32.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.08
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.63
arm thickness	5.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.0°
rear sweep	40.7°
plate length	×1.15
plate width	×1.12
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	3.6°
plate thickness	×1.08
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 4217f90da111

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.855 Wh/km
vs baseline	0.5% better
scenario mean	4.221 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.268 Wh/km
frame mass	128.1 g
material	pla_plus
born	generation 4 via crossover

hypothesisPaired weak 4ac6230067c7 (7.026) with strong 1e1a58d2ae26 (6.552), betting that trimming plate length, flattening the battery tilt, and thinning the arms would let a lighter pla_plus material compete despite its lower strength margin.

methodPlate length shortened slightly, battery wedge flattened from 2.0° to 0.0°, arm thickness thinned from 7.5 mm to 6.9 mm, plate width trimmed slightly, and material switched to pla_plus.

result6.855 Wh/km beats the weak parent (7.026) but falls well short of the strong parent (6.552) and the 6.547 best-so-far, roughly 0.2-0.3 Wh/km worse across every scenario. The material swap likely forced conservative compensating dimensions that ate the mass savings from the trims. Next: repeat this exact trim recipe in pa12_cf to isolate whether pla_plus itself is the bottleneck.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.565	151.5	25.8°
cold_headwind	4.442	188.7	40.3°
crosswind	4.222	179.3	34.9°
gusty_light	4.023	170.9	33.5°
hot_thin	3.807	161.7	28.1°
storm	5.268	223.8	36.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×0.94
arm waist	×0.85
arm thickness	6.9 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.3°
rear sweep	38.2°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	pla_plus

parents

candidate 7d22b27cf9e4

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	7.139 Wh/km
vs baseline	3.7% worse
scenario mean	4.396 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.487 Wh/km
frame mass	142.9 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 4 via crossover

hypothesisCrossed two below-average performers (edbeb4914449 6.977, a76a6566ac11 6.705), betting that substantially lengthening the arms while narrowing width and waist would trade mass for stiffness in a way neither parent had tried.

methodArm length increased sharply from ×1.05 to ×1.23, arm width narrowed slightly, and arm waist tightened slightly, with material held within pa12_cf.

result7.139 Wh/km is worse than both parents and well off the 6.547 best-so-far, roughly 0.2-0.3 Wh/km worse than a76a6566ac11 in every scenario. The long-arm bet backfired, likely adding both mass and drag without compensation. Next: this generation's data suggests arm length beyond roughly ×1.15 consistently hurts fitness — worth testing a length cap around there for future crossovers.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.699	157.1	26.0°
cold_headwind	4.668	198.3	41.2°
crosswind	4.397	186.8	35.8°
gusty_light	4.179	177.5	34.2°
hot_thin	3.945	167.6	28.4°
storm	5.487	233.1	40.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.23
arm width	×0.99
arm waist	×0.96
arm thickness	7.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.9°
rear sweep	37.2°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	33.8 mm
battery wedge	4.2°
plate thickness	×1.05
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate aa4dfe645fa0

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	105.6 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 4 via crossover

hypothesisBred from a previously non-viable parent (a634b4cbe897, fitness null) alongside solid performer d3bc126ea7b7 (6.687), betting that beefing up arm width/length and plate length while shrinking the deck gap would compound the viable parent's strengths.

methodArm width widened substantially (~×0.80 to ×1.09), plate length increased (~×0.94 to ×1.08), deck gap tightened to 26.3 mm from 30.3 mm, and arm length nudged slightly longer.

resultInvalid: pa12_cf plates came out too thin (1.4 mm vs the 1.6 mm minimum), because plate thickness stayed low while every other dimension grew rather than compensating. This confirms that breeding off a null-fitness parent carries real geometric risk when its thin-plate trait isn't explicitly corrected. Next: pair any low plate-thickness genome with a forced thickness floor before crossover.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×1.09
arm waist	×0.59
arm thickness	6.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.08
plate width	×0.97
deck gap	26.3 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 137d29b15ab2

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	110.3 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 4 via crossover

hypothesisAgain drew on the null-fitness a634b4cbe897 alongside strong performer 1e1a58d2ae26 (6.552), betting that thickening the arms would let the plates stay thin without breaching the pa12_cf minimum.

methodArm thickness increased from 6.1 mm to 7.0 mm, arm width widened, and plate width/thickness were both nudged up slightly (thickness ×0.70 to ×0.75).

resultStill invalid: plate thickness only reached 1.5 mm, just under the 1.6 mm pa12_cf floor. The correction was too small to clear a hard constraint carried by this parent's genome. Next: for offspring inheriting from this parent, clamp plate thickness explicitly to ≥1.6 mm rather than letting crossover nudge it incrementally.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.59
arm thickness	7.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	30.4 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 945c4e9c8052

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	112.1 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 4 via crossover

hypothesisCrossed mediocre 30f7b0f6b0b7 (6.755) with the incumbent champion c9cf7c11f59f (6.547), betting that shaving the champion's plate mass while sweeping the arms further forward would push fitness even lower.

methodPlate thickness cut sharply from full (×1.00) to ×0.75 and front sweep increased from 34.4° to 38.6°, with arm waist and thickness left almost unchanged.

resultInvalid: the aggressive plate cut dropped straight through the 1.6 mm pa12_cf floor (1.5 mm). This shows the champion's frame has little spare mass in its plates, so further weight savings need to come from arm taper or sweep, not direct plate thinning. Next: retry the sweep increase alone, leaving plate thickness untouched, to isolate its effect.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.09
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.84
arm thickness	7.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	38.6°
rear sweep	40.1°
plate length	×1.19
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	31.2 mm
battery wedge	9.3°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate f40d394738b2

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	106.8 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 4 via crossover

hypothesisSelf-crossed decent performer cb6b6c5540f9 (6.719) as a mutation probe, testing whether pushing sweep and arm length further while tightening the deck gap could squeeze more mass/drag savings out of an already-good frame.

methodFront sweep increased from 34.4° to 39.4°, deck gap tightened from 31.2 mm to 28.0 mm, arm thickness thinned from 6.9 mm to 6.3 mm, and arm length lengthened from ×1.09 to ×1.15.

resultInvalid: rotor too close to deck/battery. The tighter deck gap combined with longer, more-swept arms pushed a rotor into the restricted envelope. This is the second failure this generation tied to a tight deck gap, suggesting ~28 mm is unsafe once arm sweep/length are also pushed. Next: tighten deck gap alone, without increasing sweep or length, to find the real clearance floor.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.81
arm thickness	6.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	39.4°
rear sweep	39.6°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	28.0 mm
battery wedge	10.5°
plate thickness	×0.93
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 33f73a334e76

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	156.9 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 4 via immigrant

hypothesisA fresh random immigrant injected for diversity, exploring an extreme rear-sweep layout far outside the population's current cluster.

methodRandom genome with rear sweep swept back to 60.9° (roughly double the population norm), a wide 43.6 mm deck gap, moderate arm length and waist, built in pet_cf.

resultInvalid: arm tongue bolts miss the main plate. The extreme rear sweep moved the arm root tongues far enough that their bolt holes no longer land on the plate at all — a pure geometry mismatch rather than a strength/mass failure. This marks ~60° rear sweep as outside the buildable envelope for this plate layout. Next: cap rear sweep mutations below roughly 45-50° for future immigrants to keep them geometrically viable.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.06
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.69
arm thickness	8.9 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	40.1°
rear sweep	60.9°
plate length	×1.15
plate width	×1.04
deck gap	43.6 mm
battery wedge	2.6°
plate thickness	×1.01
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 65a40445a59f

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	103.1 g
material	asa
born	generation 4 via immigrant

hypothesisA random immigrant testing the ASA material family, wagering its different stiffness profile might open a favorable mass/strength tradeoff not explored by the pa12_cf/cf_plate-dominated population.

methodFresh random genome with a loosely tapered arm waist (×1.25) and thick plates (×1.31 multiplier) built in ASA, with shorter, narrower arms than the population norm.

resultInvalid: plate web too thin (1.37 mm vs the 1.90 mm ASA requires). Despite the ×1.31 thickness multiplier, ASA's much higher minimum-gauge requirement than pa12_cf's 1.6 mm still wasn't met. Next: if testing ASA again, bias the plate-thickness gene higher specifically for that material to clear its stricter floor.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×1.25
arm thickness	6.4 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	30.8°
rear sweep	61.4°
plate length	×1.16
plate width	×0.97
deck gap	29.9 mm
battery wedge	10.5°
plate thickness	×1.31
material	asa

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate fc1469ad1abe

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	128.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 4 via crossover

hypothesisSelf-crossed decent performer d3bc126ea7b7 (6.687) as a mutation probe, testing whether tightening the deck gap slightly further could squeeze out more mass savings.

methodDeck gap tightened from 30.2 mm to 28.0 mm, arm waist loosened marginally from ×0.55 to ×0.63, with arm width essentially unchanged.

resultInvalid: rotor too close to deck/battery, the same failure mode as f40d394738b2. Two independent lineages hitting this constraint at a deck gap around 28 mm strongly suggests that's close to the hard clearance floor for this rotor/deck layout regardless of arm geometry. Next: treat ~28 mm as a lower bound and avoid mutating deck gap below roughly 29-30 mm.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.06
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.63
arm thickness	5.7 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.5°
rear sweep	35.6°
plate length	×1.10
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	28.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.06
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 43a8c3b07b39

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	129.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 4 via crossover

hypothesisCrossed the same two strong parents that produced this generation's winner (1e1a58d2ae26, a76a6566ac11), this time betting that widening the deck gap for extra rotor clearance would allow thicker, wider arms without penalty.

methodDeck gap widened from 30.2 mm to 34.7 mm, arm thickness increased from 4.5 mm to 5.2 mm, arm width widened from ×0.84 to ×0.92, with plate width trimmed slightly.

resultInvalid: arm root tongues collide on the main plate. Widening the deck gap didn't help because the failure was at the arm root/plate junction, not rotor clearance — the thicker, wider arm roots simply ran out of room on the plate footprint. This is the opposite failure mode from the deck-gap-too-tight cases, showing arm root sizing has its own independent packing limit. Next: if thickening arm roots this much again, pair it with increased plate length/width rather than deck gap to give the tongues more room.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.19
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	5.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.2°
rear sweep	35.7°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	34.7 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.07
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d3bc126ea7b7

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.687 Wh/km
vs baseline	2.9% better
scenario mean	4.122 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.129 Wh/km
frame mass	126.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 3 via mutation

hypothesis8e06d4306a70 (6.828) was underperforming, likely dragged down by overly long arms; this mutation bets that reeling arm length back in while adding sweep and plate length can recover efficiency.

methodPulled arm length back in (×1.19→×1.06), increased front sweep (31.5°→34.5°), lengthened the plate further (×1.05→×1.10), and slimmed arm width (×0.84→×0.80).

resultValid at 6.687, about 2% better than its parent (6.828), but still short of the best-so-far (6.552). The shorter, more swept arms and longer plate likely trimmed both mass and drag versus the parent's overlong-arm design. Worth testing: apply this same arm-length pullback and sweep bump to a plate-width-optimized parent to see if it can beat 6.552.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.529	149.9	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.258	180.9	38.7°
crosswind	4.118	175.0	33.7°
gusty_light	3.940	167.4	32.5°
hot_thin	3.760	159.7	27.5°
storm	5.129	217.9	30.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.06
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	5.7 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.5°
rear sweep	35.6°
plate length	×1.10
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.06
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a76a6566ac11✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.705 Wh/km
vs baseline	2.6% better
scenario mean	4.132 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.145 Wh/km
frame mass	123.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 3 via designer

hypothesisGiven the leaders favor light, tapered arms, the designer bets an even more aggressive slim-and-sweep design with enlarged plates can push past the current best by minimizing arm mass while managing sweep-induced drag.

methodHand-designed a slim, swept frame: arms 5% longer but 20% narrower than stock with a slim 5.2 mm wall and tight waist taper, aggressive 37°/43° front/rear sweep, and enlarged plates, in cf_plate.

resultValid at 6.705, the best of the three designer entries and close to the mid-pack crossover results, though still short of the best-so-far. This validates the population's general direction toward slim, tapered arms even with steep sweep. Worth testing: keep this sweep and plate footprint but pull the arm wall down toward the winning line's ~4 mm to see if it closes the remaining gap.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.527	149.8	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.294	182.4	39.2°
crosswind	4.123	175.2	34.1°
gusty_light	3.945	167.6	32.9°
hot_thin	3.758	159.7	27.7°
storm	5.145	218.6	32.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.05
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.62
arm thickness	5.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	37.0°
rear sweep	43.0°
plate length	×1.15
plate width	×1.12
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	4.0°
plate thickness	×0.95
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate cb6b6c5540f9new best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.719 Wh/km
vs baseline	2.4% better
scenario mean	4.140 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.157 Wh/km
frame mass	113.5 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 2 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents were strong but plateaued near the old best; the bet was that leaning harder into a carbon-fiber-rich material blend while stretching arm and plate length slightly could cut both mass and flex losses at once.

methodCrossover shifted the material mix toward more carbon fiber, lengthened the arms about 9% and the plate about 7%, and thickened the arms slightly to 6.9 mm.

resultLanded at 6.719 Wh/km, beating both parents and becoming a NEW WINNER over the prior best-so-far of 6.807. The extra stiffness from more material and longer arms likely paid off across the gustier scenarios; worth testing an even richer material fraction or slightly longer arms to see if the trend keeps paying.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.501	148.7	25.8°
cold_headwind	4.354	185.0	40.2°
crosswind	4.151	176.3	35.1°
gusty_light	3.946	167.7	33.5°
hot_thin	3.731	158.5	28.1°
storm	5.157	219.1	36.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.09
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.81
arm thickness	6.9 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.4°
rear sweep	39.6°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	31.2 mm
battery wedge	10.5°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 30f7b0f6b0b7

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.755 Wh/km
vs baseline	1.9% better
scenario mean	4.162 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.186 Wh/km
frame mass	116.7 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 3 via mutation

hypothesiscb6b6c5540f9 (6.719) had middling performance; this mutation bets that a longer plate and a slightly eased battery wedge can improve the mass/aerodynamic balance.

methodLengthened the plate substantially (×1.07→×1.20), eased the battery wedge back a touch (10.5°→9.3°), and nudged the material blend slightly lighter within pa12_cf.

resultValid at 6.755, worse than both its parent (6.719) and the best-so-far. The extra plate length likely added mass without an aerodynamic payoff. Worth testing: revert plate length toward the parent's ×1.07 and instead mutate arm geometry, which is where recent wins have come from.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.517	149.4	25.9°
cold_headwind	4.379	186.0	40.3°
crosswind	4.175	177.4	35.3°
gusty_light	3.967	168.5	33.6°
hot_thin	3.749	159.3	28.1°
storm	5.186	220.3	36.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.09
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.81
arm thickness	6.9 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.4°
rear sweep	39.6°
plate length	×1.20
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	31.2 mm
battery wedge	9.3°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate edbeb4914449✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.977 Wh/km
vs baseline	1.3% worse
scenario mean	4.298 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.359 Wh/km
frame mass	132.3 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 3 via designer

hypothesisWith the population converging around slender, swept-arm designs scoring 6.55-6.8, the designer bets a contrasting stout, thick-walled frame in pa12_cf can test whether raw structural margin beats aerodynamic slimming.

methodHand-designed a stout frame: arms 5% longer and 5% wider than stock with a thick 7.5 mm wall, 33°/38° front/rear sweep, a 34 mm deck gap, 5° battery wedge, in pa12_cf.

resultValid at 6.977, well behind the leaders. The thick walls and wide deck gap add mass the mission profile doesn't reward, confirming the population's bias toward lighter arms is well-founded. Worth testing: keep this sweep/deck-gap layout but shave arm thickness toward 6 mm to isolate how much the extra wall mass is costing.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.633	154.3	25.9°
cold_headwind	4.532	192.5	40.6°
crosswind	4.300	182.7	35.3°
gusty_light	4.092	173.8	33.8°
hot_thin	3.872	164.5	28.2°
storm	5.359	227.6	38.3°

gene	value
arm length	×1.05
arm width	×1.05
arm waist	×1.00
arm thickness	7.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	38.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	34.0 mm
battery wedge	5.0°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	pa12_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 4ac6230067c7✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	7.026 Wh/km
vs baseline	2.0% worse
scenario mean	4.327 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.397 Wh/km
frame mass	139.7 g
material	pla_plus
born	generation 3 via designer

hypothesisTo probe whether a cheaper, lighter print material can compensate for a heavier, thicker-walled frame, the designer pairs long thick arms with pla_plus, testing if reduced material density offsets structural bulk.

methodHand-designed a heavy-duty frame: arms 15% longer than stock with a thick 7.5 mm wall, 33.5°/39° front/rear sweep, and enlarged plates, in pla_plus.

resultValid at 7.026, the weakest of the three designer entries. pla_plus's lower stiffness likely forced compensating mass elsewhere (thick walls, big plates) that erased any material savings, rather than offsetting the bulk as hoped. Worth testing: rebuild the same geometry in cf_plate or pa12_cf to isolate whether material choice or arm geometry is the bigger drag on this design.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.656	155.3	25.9°
cold_headwind	4.555	193.5	40.5°
crosswind	4.336	184.2	35.3°
gusty_light	4.122	175.1	33.7°
hot_thin	3.900	165.7	28.2°
storm	5.397	229.3	37.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×0.95
arm waist	×0.85
arm thickness	7.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.5°
rear sweep	39.0°
plate length	×1.08
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	2.0°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	pla_plus

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 09309f9a3ffc

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	7.790 Wh/km
vs baseline	13.1% worse
scenario mean	4.794 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.992 Wh/km
frame mass	187.2 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 3 via crossover

hypothesis15c422327b08 (7.622) was the weakest scored parent in the pool; self-crossing it explores whether widening arms and thickening plates in a different material can pull it toward the pack, though doubling down on a weak lineage is a long shot.

methodPulled rear sweep in (39.6°→34.0°), thickened plates further (×1.43→×1.60), widened arms (×1.10→×1.21), and shifted the material blend from pet_cf toward a lighter variant.

resultValid but worse than its own weak parent, at 7.79 versus 7.622. Piling more plate mass and arm width onto an already-weak design only added weight without an offsetting benefit, and the material swap didn't help either. This teaches that this lineage isn't worth further investment. Worth testing: retire this branch and instead cross a fresh design against one of the top-3 parents.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	4.040	171.6	26.2°
cold_headwind	5.122	217.6	41.7°
crosswind	4.774	202.8	36.4°
gusty_light	4.542	192.9	34.6°
hot_thin	4.296	182.5	28.7°
storm	5.992	254.6	42.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.26
arm width	×1.21
arm waist	×1.05
arm thickness	7.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	39.7°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	44.5 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×1.60
material	pet_cf

parents

candidate 3edb9219bf87

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.97 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	130.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 3 via crossover

hypothesisThe cb6b6c5540f9 line (6.719) was solid but still heavier than the leaders; crossing it with an unscored sibling bets that shorter arms and a leveled battery mount can shave mass without giving up stiffness.

methodShortened arm length by about 19% versus the cb6b6c5540f9 parent, zeroed the battery wedge, pushed rear sweep out from 36.6° to 39.4°, and returned the arm waist to full width (untapered).

resultInvalid: the plate web came out at 0.97 mm against a 1.90 mm stock minimum. Untapering the arm waist while also trimming length pulled material away from the plate junction faster than expected. Worth testing: keep plate thickness bumped up whenever the arm waist is returned toward full width.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.81
arm width	×0.93
arm waist	×1.00
arm thickness	6.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.1°
rear sweep	39.4°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.94
deck gap	30.4 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate c5f9522e79bb

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	105.2 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 3 via crossover

hypothesiscb6b6c5540f9's arm/plate balance still trailed the leaders; blending it with an unscored sibling and pushing battery tilt further bets on finding a tighter arm-waist taper that stays stiff enough.

methodRaised battery wedge from 10.5° to 14.2°, pulled arm length back in (×1.09→×0.97), tightened the arm waist taper (×0.81→×0.72), and trimmed plate width slightly.

resultInvalid: plate web measured 1.44 mm versus the 1.90 mm minimum. Even a moderate waist tightening combined with wedge changes was enough to breach the floor. Worth testing: couple plate thickness upward automatically whenever waist taper drops below roughly ×0.75.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.97
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.72
arm thickness	6.9 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.5°
rear sweep	39.3°
plate length	×1.06
plate width	×0.97
deck gap	31.3 mm
battery wedge	14.2°
plate thickness	×1.01
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 7233d53a3e8b

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	133.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 3 via crossover

hypothesis567a47539bb8 (6.807) was underperforming the leaders, likely from mass concentrated in its plates; this cross bets that trimming plate thickness and narrowing arms further can close the gap.

methodReduced plate thickness less aggressively than the other parent (×0.70→×0.85), narrowed arm width further (×0.86→×0.79), pulled front sweep in slightly (31.5°→30.0°), and shortened arm length a touch (×1.35→×1.31).

resultInvalid: the arm root tongues collided on the main plate. Narrower arms combined with a tighter front sweep crowded the four root attachment points. Worth testing: only narrow arm width when sweep stays wide (above ~32°) to preserve root clearance.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.31
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.59
arm thickness	6.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	36.3°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.5 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate bb0eed2bdfef

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	141.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 3 via crossover

hypothesis1e1a58d2ae26 is the current best-so-far (6.552); this cross makes only small tweaks to its winning recipe, betting that minor plate and battery refinements can eke out further gains without disturbing what already works.

methodTrimmed plate width slightly (×0.94→×0.93), thickened the arm wall marginally (6.2→6.3 mm), and left plate length and battery wedge essentially unchanged from the champion parent.

resultInvalid: plate web dropped to 0.73 mm against the 1.90 mm minimum. This shows the champion line is already sitting close to its structural floor, so even a small plate-width trim breaks it. Worth testing: leave plate width untouched on this lineage and vary only arm geometry instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.93
arm thickness	6.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.2°
rear sweep	36.6°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.93
deck gap	30.3 mm
battery wedge	2.9°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a7df2893e710

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	146.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 3 via crossover

hypothesis15c422327b08 (7.622) is the weakest scored parent in the pool; crossing it in while thickening the arms bets that added arm robustness can rescue some of its traits, though shrinking the plates is a risk.

methodRaised battery wedge from 3.1° to 5.1°, shrank plate length and width (×1.00→×0.94, ×0.94→×0.89), and thickened the arm wall from 6.2 mm to 6.7 mm.

resultInvalid: arm root tongues collided on the main plate. Shrinking the plate footprint while thickening arms left no room for the root attachments even with the weak parent's genetics folded in. Worth testing: hold plate footprint fixed whenever arm thickness increases.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.02
arm width	×0.88
arm waist	×0.93
arm thickness	6.7 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	36.5°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×0.89
deck gap	30.5 mm
battery wedge	5.1°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate bf2e6f93d302

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	81.3 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 3 via crossover

hypothesisThe leader 1e1a58d2ae26 (6.552) still used a relatively heavy arm wall; crossing it with 4743fc24d9d8 (6.79) and switching to lighter pa12_cf bets that a thinner-walled, lighter-material arm can cut mass further, at the risk of insufficient stiffness.

methodSwitched material from cf_plate to pa12_cf, thinned the arm wall to 4.0 mm, pulled rear sweep in (35.6°→34.0°), and widened the plate slightly (×1.06→×1.08).

resultInvalid: arm tip deflection failure in pa12_cf. A 4.0 mm wall was fine in stiffer cf_plate (as in the winning c9cf7c11f59f) but too flexible once the softer pa12_cf material was substituted in. Worth testing: raise the minimum arm wall thickness whenever material is set to pa12_cf, or restrict thin walls to cf_plate only.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.18
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.5°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.06
plate width	×1.08
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.07
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate a634b4cbe897

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	94.4 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 3 via crossover

hypothesis4743fc24d9d8 (6.79) and cb6b6c5540f9 (6.719) were both mid-pack; crossing them and shifting to pa12_cf bets that a lighter material with narrower arms can undercut both parents, at the risk of insufficient plate thickness for the softer material.

methodSwitched material toward pa12_cf, narrowed arm width (×0.88→×0.80), trimmed plate width slightly (×1.00→×0.97), and tightened the arm waist taper marginally.

resultInvalid: plates measured 1.4 mm against pa12_cf's 1.6 mm minimum. The ×0.70 plate thickness multiplier, inherited from a cf_plate-tuned parent, wasn't compensated for the material's stricter minimum. Worth testing: auto-floor the plate thickness multiplier near ×0.85+ whenever a cross switches material to pa12_cf.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.59
arm thickness	6.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×0.97
deck gap	30.3 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 4743fc24d9d8

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.790 Wh/km
vs baseline	1.4% better
scenario mean	4.183 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.214 Wh/km
frame mass	130.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 2 via crossover

hypothesisWith 567a47539bb8 sitting at the old best-so-far, the bet was that trimming its arm length slightly and cross-pollinating with a slightly weaker parent could nudge the champion lineage even lower.

methodArm length was pulled back to about 1.28x from the champion's 1.35x, with width, waist, and plate thickness left nearly unchanged.

resultCame in at 6.79 Wh/km — better than the original 6.807 best-so-far but not a new record, since cb6b6c5540f9 had already claimed 6.719 earlier this generation. Trimming arm length under-shot the champion's sweet spot; worth re-testing this exact recipe against the newer, thinner-armed leader instead of the original champion.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.554	151.0	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.363	185.3	39.7°
crosswind	4.180	177.6	34.3°
gusty_light	3.993	169.6	33.1°
hot_thin	3.793	161.1	27.8°
storm	5.214	221.5	34.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.28
arm width	×0.88
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	6.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.6°
rear sweep	36.4°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	29.9 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 567a47539bb8new best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.807 Wh/km
vs baseline	1.2% better
scenario mean	4.193 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.227 Wh/km
frame mass	132.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 1 via crossover

hypothesisThe reigning best frame 7792e42599f3 (6.886) was efficient but plate-heavy, while fb21f27a5a37 (7.288) ran leaner overall; the bet was that borrowing fb21's lighter proportions plus a lighter layup could shave mass without losing stiffness.

methodThinned the plate by 30%, shortened plate length by 6%, stretched the arms 35% longer, and switched to a lighter carbon-fiber weave.

resultA clear win at 6.807 Wh/km — a NEW WINNER, beating the prior best-so-far of 6.886 and both parents outright. The combined mass savings paid off across every scenario, notably storm (5.23), without costing stability. Worth testing next: push plate thickness further toward the structural floor to see if more savings remain before the web-thickness limit bites.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.561	151.3	25.7°
cold_headwind	4.373	185.8	39.7°
crosswind	4.196	178.2	34.4°
gusty_light	4.003	170.0	33.1°
hot_thin	3.801	161.5	27.8°
storm	5.227	222.0	34.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.86
arm waist	×0.59
arm thickness	6.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.5°
rear sweep	36.3°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	29.9 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 8e06d4306a70

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.828 Wh/km
vs baseline	0.9% better
scenario mean	4.208 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.241 Wh/km
frame mass	137.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 1 via crossover

hypothesisSame pairing logic as sibling 567a47539bb8 — lend fb21f27a5a37's leaner arm proportions to champion 7792e42599f3 — but this variant kept the plate slightly thicker instead of shedding mass there.

methodShortened arms by 19% (versus 24% in the sibling), thickened the plate by 6% instead of thinning it, and trimmed the arm waist a bit further.

resultValid at 6.828 Wh/km, a modest gain over both parents but not the new best-so-far — sibling 567a47539bb8 already claimed that spot at 6.807 this same generation. The extra plate mass likely cost it the edge. Worth testing: retry this arm-length trim paired with the sibling's thinner plate to see if the two changes stack additively.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.588	152.4	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.363	185.4	39.0°
crosswind	4.208	178.8	34.1°
gusty_light	4.019	170.7	32.8°
hot_thin	3.827	162.6	27.7°
storm	5.241	222.6	32.3°

gene	value
arm length	×1.19
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	6.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.5°
rear sweep	35.6°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.06
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate f7529dac5308

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.868 Wh/km
vs baseline	0.3% better
scenario mean	4.232 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.273 Wh/km
frame mass	140.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 2 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing 155527aa42e6 and 7792e42599f3 bet that flattening the battery wedge closer to level and trimming plate length slightly could cut trim drag in headwind scenarios.

methodBattery wedge reduced to about 1.0° from 3.2°, plate length trimmed to about 98%, and arm waist tightened slightly to 91%.

result6.868 Wh/km — valid but worse than both parents and well off the generation's new best of 6.552. Flattening the wedge cost more in balance/trim than it saved in drag, most visible in cold_headwind and storm; worth testing an intermediate wedge angle rather than swinging all the way to level.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.612	153.4	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.383	186.2	39.0°
crosswind	4.226	179.5	33.9°
gusty_light	4.042	171.7	32.7°
hot_thin	3.854	163.7	27.6°
storm	5.273	224.0	31.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.91
arm thickness	6.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.5°
rear sweep	36.5°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	29.9 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 15c422327b08

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	7.622 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.7% worse
scenario mean	4.691 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.862 Wh/km
frame mass	174.9 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 2 via crossover

hypothesisParent 147c162c7115 was a weak performer, so this self-cross was a long-shot bet that a lighter alternative material and a steeper battery wedge could rescue it into contention.

methodSelf-crossover shifted the material blend toward pet_cf (45%, up from 0%) and steepened the battery wedge to 15° from 13.4°, leaving the rest of the geometry unchanged.

result7.622 Wh/km — an improvement over the 7.97 parent but still far off the field, let alone the new 6.552 best-so-far. The underlying arm/plate proportions were the real liability, not the material or wedge; this lineage probably isn't worth further crossing unless paired with a genuinely more competitive geometry parent.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.953	167.9	26.2°
cold_headwind	5.006	212.7	41.5°
crosswind	4.674	198.5	36.2°
gusty_light	4.448	189.0	34.4°
hot_thin	4.205	178.6	28.6°
storm	5.862	249.0	41.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.26
arm width	×1.10
arm waist	×0.98
arm thickness	7.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	39.7°
rear sweep	39.6°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	42.3 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×1.43
material	pet_cf

parents

candidate 5ed287457f78

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	167.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 2 via immigrant

hypothesisA from-scratch immigrant probing a chunkier, pinched-waist arm with a much bigger deck gap, betting that a heavier-duty arm root could survive worse gusts even without inherited genes.

methodRandom genome: arms 6% shorter and 6% wider with the waist pinched to 65%, thickened to 8.3 mm, paired with a stiffer CF plate and a wide deck gap.

resultInvalid — the arm tongue bolts miss the main plate, a mismatch between arm-root width and the plate's bolt pattern. This defect recurs elsewhere this generation, suggesting arm width and plate width/length need to be sampled jointly for immigrants rather than independently.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.94
arm width	×1.06
arm waist	×0.65
arm thickness	8.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	42.2°
rear sweep	57.4°
plate length	×1.10
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	42.8 mm
battery wedge	10.0°
plate thickness	×0.84
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 525912aa347b

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.78 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	150.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 2 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing 567a47539bb8 (near the old champion) with 7792e42599f3 bet that beefing up the arms with extra material margin could pay for itself in robustness.

methodArm thickness increased to 7.0 mm from 6.0 mm, plate width trimmed about 7%, material blend nudged up, and plate thickness increased slightly.

resultInvalid — the plate web ended up too thin (0.78 mm vs. the 1.90 mm stock minimum), a byproduct of narrowing plate width without compensating thickness enough. This exact failure recurs multiple times this generation; future crosses of these parents should hold plate width fixed whenever thickness is also reduced.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.86
arm waist	×0.59
arm thickness	7.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.5°
rear sweep	36.3°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×0.93
deck gap	29.9 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.76
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 18764ba12399

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	168.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 2 via crossover

hypothesisParent 155527aa42e6 had decent form; this self-cross bet on a much beefier arm and shorter overall arm length to shift mass inward and cut drag.

methodSelf-crossover thickened the arms to 8.6 mm from 6.2 mm, shortened arm length to about 83%, and widened the plate slightly with a tighter deck gap.

resultInvalid — shortening the arms while props stayed fixed caused the rotor disks to overlap, violating tip clearance. This marks a hard floor on arm-length reduction that's set by prop diameter; any future shrink needs a joint check against rotor clearance before committing to simulation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.93
arm thickness	8.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.5°
rear sweep	36.5°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	29.3 mm
battery wedge	3.2°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b24c2b7ec3dc

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	201.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 2 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the weak 147c162c7115 with the stronger 9f8cb660ef38 bet that widening the arms while narrowing the plate could rescue the weaker parent's contribution.

methodArm width increased to about 1.30x from 1.10x, plate width and length both trimmed roughly 5-6%, and arm thickness reduced to 6.3 mm.

resultInvalid — the plate web came out too thin again (0.85 mm vs. 1.90 mm stock), the same failure mode as 525912aa347b. Narrowing the plate footprint while bumping the thickness multiplier isn't enough to protect the web when arm-root cutouts eat into it; plate width and thickness likely need a coupled constraint check before simulation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×1.30
arm waist	×0.99
arm thickness	6.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	38.7°
rear sweep	39.6°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×0.94
deck gap	44.8 mm
battery wedge	13.3°
plate thickness	×1.46
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 3acb6f67aff0

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	113.4 g
material	asa
born	generation 2 via immigrant

hypothesisA fresh immigrant testing a compact deck layout with wide, pinched-waist arms and a lightweight ASA plate, betting a tighter, lighter frame could undercut the leaders on mass alone.

methodRandom genome: arms 7% longer and 30% wider with the waist pinched to 92%, thickened to 5.3 mm, with the deck gap shrunk to 21.6 mm and material switched to ASA.

resultInvalid — deck gap too small for the FC/ESC stack, a packaging constraint rather than an aerodynamic one. Deck gap needs a hard floor tied to electronics stack height regardless of how promising the aero genes look; future immigrants should sample it from a range respecting that floor.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.07
arm width	×1.30
arm waist	×0.92
arm thickness	5.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	46.2°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×1.25
plate width	×0.92
deck gap	21.6 mm
battery wedge	11.9°
plate thickness	×1.60
material	asa

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 13deecb4fddf

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	138.9 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 2 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing an unevaluated/invalid parent with the solid performer 7792e42599f3 was an attempt to salvage useful genes — wider arms and more pet_cf — from a discarded lineage.

methodArm width increased to 1.40x from 1.25x, waist loosened slightly, material blend nudged toward more pet_cf, and rear sweep eased slightly to 46.5°.

resultInvalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate, the same failure as immigrant 5ed287457f78. Two independent invalids on this exact defect this generation point to wide arm width combined with certain plate proportions as the culprit; that combination should be flagged before simulation rather than discovered after.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.89
arm width	×1.40
arm waist	×1.01
arm thickness	6.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.9°
rear sweep	46.5°
plate length	×1.09
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	26.6 mm
battery wedge	1.8°
plate thickness	×1.26
material	pet_cf

parents

candidate 018cf7cf45d5

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.84 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	139.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 2 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two mid-pack performers, 155527aa42e6 and 9f8cb660ef38, bet that a narrower plate and slightly steeper front sweep could trim drag without disturbing much else.

methodPlate width trimmed to about 94%, front sweep increased slightly to 32.1° from 31.5°, and deck gap opened marginally to 30.3 mm.

resultInvalid — plate web too thin (0.84 mm vs. 1.90 mm stock), the third occurrence of this exact failure this generation. Narrowing plate width appears to be the common thread across all three plate-web invalids; reductions below roughly 95% should be flagged unless plate thickness increases in tandem.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.93
arm thickness	6.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.1°
rear sweep	36.6°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.94
deck gap	30.3 mm
battery wedge	3.1°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 0969790bc7ed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	136.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 2 via crossover

hypothesisSelf-cross of 8e06d4306a70 bet that a shallower front sweep angle could shave frontal drag while keeping the rest of the proven geometry intact.

methodFront sweep reduced to 30.0° from 31.5° with arm length trimmed marginally to about 1.17x.

resultInvalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate, a new failure mode distinct from the tongue-miss-bolt issue seen elsewhere. Even a small sweep change rotated the arm roots into collision on this already-tight plate footprint, showing this lineage sits close to a geometric boundary; future tweaks should widen the plate or deck gap before touching sweep angle again.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.17
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	6.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	35.6°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.06
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 6c9aba1081db

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	129.6 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 2 via immigrant

hypothesisA fresh immigrant testing a lightweight pet_cf build with a pinched, thin arm profile, betting that shaving material broadly across arms and plate could undercut the field on power draw.

methodRandom genome: arms roughly unchanged in length but narrowed to 81% width and 79% waist, thickened to 8.4 mm, with thinner plates (0.77x) in pet_cf material.

resultInvalid — plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 mm vs. the 1.6 mm minimum for that material). This is a material-specific constraint: pet_cf needs a higher minimum plate thickness than cf_plate, so future immigrants sampling pet_cf need a higher thickness floor baked into the sampler.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.99
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.79
arm thickness	8.4 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	40.2°
rear sweep	35.8°
plate length	×0.93
plate width	×0.91
deck gap	34.1 mm
battery wedge	4.3°
plate thickness	×0.77
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 7792e42599f3new best when evaluated✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.886 Wh/km
vs baseline	is the baseline (gen-0 winner)
scenario mean	4.243 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.287 Wh/km
frame mass	139.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 0 via designer

hypothesisReacting to the failure of scaling everything up, the designer's next bet is the opposite: keep the long arm for prop clearance but slim its width and waist while leaving plate, deck gap, and thickness at safe stock values to avoid any structural violation.

methodArm lengthened 25% like the previous designer try, but width cut to 85% and waist slimmed sharply to 60%, thickness left at stock 6.0mm; sweep, deck gap, and plate thickness all held at stock values, battery wedge flattened to 0°, plate length up a modest 5%, in carbon-fiber plate.

resultNEW WINNER at 6.886 Wh/km, edging out the previous best (6.936) in every single scenario, including storm (5.29 vs 5.32). The long arm evidently helps stability/efficiency while the slimmer width and waist cut mass without breaching any minimum-material constraint - the first sign that 'lean, not scaled' is the right direction. Next idea: push the waist or width slimming a bit further still, watching closely for the plate-web-too-thin failure mode seen in several seeds.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.610	153.4	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.411	187.4	39.4°
crosswind	4.245	180.3	34.3°
gusty_light	4.051	172.1	32.9°
hot_thin	3.852	163.7	27.7°
storm	5.287	224.6	33.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.25
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	6.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.4°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 155527aa42e6

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.901 Wh/km
vs baseline	0.2% worse
scenario mean	4.252 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.299 Wh/km
frame mass	142.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 1 via crossover

hypothesisbaac55fb3837 (6.936) needed a small refinement; paired with an unevaluated candidate to explore whether a narrower arm width and slight battery wedge tweak could trim a bit more drag.

methodNarrowed the arm width by 11%, tightened the arm waist by 7%, added a small battery wedge, and switched to a lighter carbon-fiber material.

resultValid at 6.901 Wh/km, a small improvement over its known parent baac55fb3837 (6.936) but well short of the generation's new best-so-far of 6.807. The arm-width trim helped modestly across every scenario without a standout win anywhere. Worth testing: apply the same arm-width and waist trim to the new champion lineage (567a47539bb8) rather than the older baac55fb3837 line.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.627	154.1	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.409	187.3	39.1°
crosswind	4.248	180.5	34.0°
gusty_light	4.061	172.5	32.7°
hot_thin	3.869	164.4	27.6°
storm	5.299	225.1	32.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.93
arm thickness	6.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.5°
rear sweep	36.5°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	29.9 mm
battery wedge	3.2°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 9f8cb660ef38✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.908 Wh/km
vs baseline	0.3% worse
scenario mean	4.257 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.301 Wh/km
frame mass	138.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 0 via designer

hypothesisBuilding on the winning slim-arm insight, the designer asks whether the width/waist slimming alone (without lengthening the arm) captures most of the benefit.

methodArm length left at stock, width and waist both trimmed to 80%, thickness at 6.5mm; sweep held at 34.0°/39.0°, plate and deck gap left at stock, battery wedge steepened to 10°, carbon-fiber plate kept.

resultValid at 6.908 Wh/km - better than the original stock baseline (6.936) in every scenario, but just short of the reigning best-so-far (6.886), so it does not take the lead. This confirms width/waist slimming is the dominant efficiency lever, though the current champion's added arm length still edges it out slightly, suggesting length and slimming compound rather than substitute. Next idea: combine this candidate's width/waist trim with the champion's longer arm to see if the two effects stack.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.631	154.2	25.6°
cold_headwind	4.425	188.0	39.1°
crosswind	4.254	180.7	34.0°
gusty_light	4.064	172.7	32.8°
hot_thin	3.869	164.4	27.7°
storm	5.301	225.2	32.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.80
arm thickness	6.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.0°
rear sweep	39.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	10.0°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 74b3739c8c62

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	7.727 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.2% worse
scenario mean	4.752 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.950 Wh/km
frame mass	182.3 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 1 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents were weak (89ffb906b148 at 8.479, 9be55419299a at 7.598) but each carried heavy-duty structural traits; the bet was that a lighter material swap could recover efficiency from their combined bulk.

methodThinned the plate slightly, trimmed plate length by 2%, and switched to a lighter pa12_cf material while keeping the arms fairly thick at 9mm.

resultValid at 7.727 Wh/km, a solid improvement over both parents but nowhere near the 6.807 best-so-far. The material swap clearly helped, but the still-thick arms and oversized plate width kept overall mass too high. Worth testing: keep the material swap but shrink arm thickness toward 6-7mm to see how much further this lineage can improve.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.974	168.8	26.2°
cold_headwind	5.098	216.6	42.0°
crosswind	4.741	201.4	36.4°
gusty_light	4.504	191.3	34.7°
hot_thin	4.242	180.2	28.7°
storm	5.950	252.8	42.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.24
arm width	×1.24
arm waist	×1.10
arm thickness	9.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.3°
rear sweep	37.2°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.10
deck gap	29.0 mm
battery wedge	5.0°
plate thickness	×1.03
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 0e87bd2659ae

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	7.765 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.8% worse
scenario mean	4.780 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.970 Wh/km
frame mass	197.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 1 via crossover

hypothesisac6152897717 (7.761) was underperforming broadly; paired with an unevaluated candidate to test whether a wider plate and steeper battery wedge could offset its weaknesses.

methodWidened the plate by 11%, increased the battery wedge to 13.3 degrees, swept the rear arms back further, and shifted toward a heavier material blend.

resultValid at 7.765 Wh/km, essentially unchanged from its weak parent (7.761) and far off the 6.807 best-so-far. None of the changes moved the needle — the frame still carries too much structural mass from the wide plate and thick arms. Worth testing: abandon this heavy-plate direction and instead cross ac6152897717 with the new champion lineage for a bigger structural shake-up.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	4.050	172.0	25.9°
cold_headwind	5.035	213.9	40.5°
crosswind	4.764	202.4	35.3°
gusty_light	4.544	193.0	33.7°
hot_thin	4.316	183.3	28.2°
storm	5.970	253.6	37.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.20
arm width	×1.09
arm waist	×0.80
arm thickness	6.9 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	38.4°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.17
deck gap	42.0 mm
battery wedge	13.3°
plate thickness	×1.43
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 147c162c7115

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	7.970 Wh/km
vs baseline	15.7% worse
scenario mean	4.906 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.128 Wh/km
frame mass	211.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 1 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents (ac6152897717 at 7.761, fb21f27a5a37 at 7.288) were already underperformers; the bet was that combining ac6152897717's stouter arms with fb21's proportions might uncover a hidden sweet spot.

methodWidened the arm waist toward round, increased the battery wedge slightly, thickened the arms marginally, and widened the plate a touch.

resultValid but worse at 7.97 Wh/km, underperforming both parents and far off the best-so-far. Combining two already-weak designs compounded their weaknesses instead of cancelling them, especially visible in storm (6.13) and cold headwind (5.18). Worth testing: stop breeding from ac6152897717 unless paired with a much stronger second parent.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	4.162	176.8	26.0°
cold_headwind	5.178	220.0	40.9°
crosswind	4.882	207.4	35.6°
gusty_light	4.657	197.9	34.0°
hot_thin	4.429	188.2	28.4°
storm	6.128	260.3	39.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.26
arm width	×1.10
arm waist	×0.98
arm thickness	7.1 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	39.7°
rear sweep	39.6°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	42.3 mm
battery wedge	13.4°
plate thickness	×1.43
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate c7930fc5ffc6

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	150.8 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 1 via crossover

hypothesisParent fb21f27a5a37 (7.288) ran a wide, draggy arm waist while baac55fb3837 (6.936) was leaner and more compact; the bet was that combining baac's tighter waist with fb21's rear sweep would cut drag further still.

methodSlimmed the arm waist well beyond either parent, swept the rear arms back further, trimmed plate length slightly, and opened the deck gap by a few millimeters.

resultInvalid — the arm tongue bolts no longer land on the main plate, a bolt-pattern miss caused by combining the aggressive waist thinning with the increased rear sweep. This is one of two candidates this generation to hit the exact same failure, pointing to a real design-space wall. Worth testing: cap rear sweep near 45° whenever arm waist drops below about 0.65x to keep the bolt pattern on the plate.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.24
arm width	×1.14
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	6.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.7°
rear sweep	50.6°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×1.21
deck gap	34.1 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.40
material	pet_cf

parents

candidate 3aa7d17fe4ff

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	135.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 1 via crossover

hypothesis7792e42599f3 (6.886) had margin in its deck clearance, while 59b9a52c15fa (7.127) ran a tighter deck stack; the bet was that pulling the deck gap down would shrink frontal area and drag.

methodShrank the deck gap by roughly 5.5mm, shortened the arms slightly, and nudged arm waist and material blend a touch thinner.

resultInvalid — the tighter deck gap pushed the rotor disk too close to the deck/battery stack. This is the generation's second clearance-driven failure, suggesting a deck gap below about 25mm isn't survivable at this arm length. Worth testing: pair any deck-gap reduction with a compensating arm-length increase to preserve rotor clearance.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.19
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.62
arm thickness	6.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.6°
rear sweep	35.6°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	24.5 mm
battery wedge	0.1°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 8647cb40064a

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_top 1.25 mm, stock 1.75 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	99.2 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 1 via crossover

hypothesis9f8cb660ef38 (6.908) performed well on a lighter material blend, while ac6152897717 (7.761) had struggled; the bet was that a heavier composite plus wider battery wedge might buy stability margin in gusty conditions.

methodShifted the material blend much heavier, thinned the arm from 6.5mm to 5.2mm, widened the front sweep, and opened the arm waist toward round.

resultInvalid — the plate web came out too thin (1.25mm vs a 1.75mm stock minimum), a structural failure from thinning the arm while also shortening the plate. This shows arm-thickness and plate-length changes need a coupled constraint check. Worth testing: hold plate length near parity whenever arm thickness drops below 6mm.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.98
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.95
arm thickness	5.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	38.5°
rear sweep	39.0°
plate length	×0.91
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.4 mm
battery wedge	10.0°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	pet_cf

parents

candidate be7ac6212cf7

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	143.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 1 via crossover

hypothesisA self-cross of 9f8cb660ef38 (6.908) probing its own neighborhood, testing whether trimming plate length and lightening the battery wedge could squeeze more efficiency from an already-strong design.

methodShortened the plate by 15%, reduced battery wedge from 10 to 5.8 degrees, lengthened the arms 16%, and switched to a lighter carbon-fiber weave.

resultInvalid — the plate web thinned to 1.11mm against a 1.47mm stock minimum, another structural miss driven by shortening the plate while lengthening the arms. Together with candidate 8647cb40064a's failure, plate-length reduction looks like the common thread behind this generation's web-thickness violations. Worth testing: hold plate length fixed and vary only arm length or material to isolate which change actually drives the efficiency gain.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.16
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.80
arm thickness	6.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.0°
rear sweep	39.0°
plate length	×0.85
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	5.8°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate debe542fc520

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	112.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 1 via crossover

hypothesisA self-cross of baac55fb3837 (6.936) testing whether shortening the arms and opening the deck gap could cut frontal drag from an already solid mid-pack frame.

methodShortened the arms by 20%, thinned them from 6mm to 4.9mm, opened the deck gap by roughly 4.4mm, and tightened the arm waist slightly.

resultInvalid — the shorter, thinner arms caused the rotor disks to overlap in tip clearance. This is the fourth invalid candidate this generation and the second driven by arm shortening, suggesting arm length below about 0.85x needs a paired widening of plate width to keep rotor centers apart. Worth testing: shorten arms only alongside a wider plate to preserve rotor clearance.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×1.00
arm waist	×0.88
arm thickness	4.9 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.4°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	34.4 mm
battery wedge	3.9°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate c7d45f84f4ce

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	136.1 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 1 via immigrant

hypothesisA random immigrant injected to keep genetic diversity up, exploring a fresh region of the design space unrelated to the current champion lineage.

methodSet arm proportions from scratch with a wider arm width and waist, a steeply swept rear arm, and a lighter pet_cf material.

resultInvalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate, the same bolt-alignment failure seen in candidate c7930fc5ffc6. Two independent lineages (a crossover and a fresh immigrant) hitting this exact constraint suggests wide waist plus aggressive rear sweep is a structural dead end regardless of ancestry. Worth testing: add an explicit bolt-pattern-vs-sweep check to the pre-flight validator so future immigrants don't burn slots on it.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.89
arm width	×1.25
arm waist	×1.06
arm thickness	6.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.8°
rear sweep	47.1°
plate length	×1.09
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	26.6 mm
battery wedge	1.9°
plate thickness	×1.25
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 4775089f5490

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm resonance with rotor 1P
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	162.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 1 via crossover

hypothesisPairing two of the generation's strongest parents — 9f8cb660ef38 (6.908) and reigning champion 7792e42599f3 (6.886) — betting that thicker arms would add stiffness headroom for a longer, more efficient plate.

methodThickened the arms from 6.5mm to 8.3mm, lengthened the plate by 11%, and shortened the arms by 6%.

resultInvalid — arm resonance with rotor 1P, a vibration failure from the thicker, shorter arm shifting its natural frequency into the rotor's first-harmonic band. This shows arm thickness and length are coupled through resonance, not just mass, even when otherwise structurally sound. Worth testing: check arm natural frequency against 1P before increasing thickness further on shortened arms.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.94
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.78
arm thickness	8.3 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.0°
rear sweep	39.1°
plate length	×1.11
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	29.3 mm
battery wedge	9.8°
plate thickness	×0.96
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate adb2a0016661

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	154.2 g
material	petg
born	generation 1 via crossover

hypothesisA self-cross of 59b9a52c15fa (7.127) probing whether widening the plate and reducing front sweep could recover some of its lost efficiency.

methodWidened the plate by 16%, lengthened it by 9%, reduced front sweep from 34 to 30 degrees, and nearly zeroed out the battery wedge.

resultInvalid — rotor disks overlap in tip clearance, the same failure mode as candidate debe542fc520. The wider plate didn't compensate enough for the reduced front sweep pulling rotor centers closer together. Worth testing: when reducing front sweep, widen plate width more aggressively or hold arm length steady to preserve rotor spacing.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.90
arm width	×1.20
arm waist	×1.10
arm thickness	8.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	39.0°
plate length	×1.09
plate width	×1.16
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	0.4°
plate thickness	×1.01
material	petg

parents

candidate baac55fb3837new best when evaluated

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	6.936 Wh/km
vs baseline	0.7% worse
scenario mean	4.274 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.325 Wh/km
frame mass	144.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 0 via seed

hypothesisAs the very first frame in the study, this candidate has no history to react to; its role is simply to fly the unmodified Source One V6 geometry and establish the reference point every later mutation will be judged against.

methodEvery gene left at its stock value: default arm length, width, waist, and 6.0mm thickness, stock 31.4°/36.0° sweep, stock plate footprint and 30mm deck gap, a mild 2.0° battery wedge, and the stock carbon-fiber plate material.

resultWith nothing to compare it to yet, it trivially becomes the first best-so-far at 6.936 Wh/km, with storm predictably the worst scenario at 5.32. It's a solid, unremarkable control build. Worth testing next: nudge single genes (thickness, width) off this baseline one at a time to map which levers actually move the needle before committing to compound mutations.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.652	155.1	25.5°
cold_headwind	4.423	187.9	39.3°
crosswind	4.267	181.3	34.1°
gusty_light	4.083	173.4	32.8°
hot_thin	3.895	165.5	27.6°
storm	5.325	226.2	32.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×1.00
arm waist	×1.00
arm thickness	6.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.4°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	2.0°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 59b9a52c15fa✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	7.127 Wh/km
vs baseline	3.5% worse
scenario mean	4.390 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.474 Wh/km
frame mass	149.4 g
material	petg
born	generation 0 via designer

hypothesisThe designer tries the opposite length bet from its winning sibling, wondering if a shorter but wider, thicker arm on a low-cost PETG frame could also trim energy use.

methodArm shortened to 90% of stock length but width up 20% and waist widened 10%, thickness raised to 8.0mm; sweep nudged to 34.0°/39.0°, deck gap widened slightly to 32mm, plate thickness up 10%, switched to PETG.

resultValid at 7.127 Wh/km, worse than both the stock baseline and the new best-so-far in every scenario. Shortening the arm didn't pay off once paired with a wider, thicker cross-section and a heavier PETG build - the mass increase dominates any drag savings from the shorter length. Next idea: retest a shortened arm but paired with the slim width/waist recipe from the current winner instead of thickening it.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.728	158.4	25.8°
cold_headwind	4.595	195.2	40.1°
crosswind	4.386	186.3	34.8°
gusty_light	4.184	177.7	33.4°
hot_thin	3.975	168.9	28.0°
storm	5.474	232.6	36.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.90
arm width	×1.20
arm waist	×1.10
arm thickness	8.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.0°
rear sweep	39.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	3.0°
plate thickness	×1.10
material	petg

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate fb21f27a5a37

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	7.288 Wh/km
vs baseline	5.8% worse
scenario mean	4.486 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.604 Wh/km
frame mass	158.6 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 0 via seed

hypothesisThis seed bets on a moderately scaled-up frame with a wider plate and heavier plate stock, hoping the extra structure pays for itself without breaking any constraints.

methodArms lengthened 23% and thickened to 6.5mm, width up 13% with waist trimmed to 80%; sweep raised to 34.8°/44.2°; plate stretched 7% longer and 23% wider, deck gap widened to 31.5mm, battery wedge nearly flat at 0.2°, plate thickness up 36%, in PET-CF.

resultIt came in valid at 7.288 Wh/km, worse than the stock baseline across every scenario (storm 5.60 vs 5.32). The wider, thicker build again added more mass/drag than it saved, landing well short of best-so-far. Next idea: try the same sweep and deck-gap changes but without the 23% plate-width and 36% thickness increases, to isolate whether sweep alone helps.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.781	160.6	26.0°
cold_headwind	4.747	201.7	41.0°
crosswind	4.481	190.3	35.5°
gusty_light	4.266	181.2	34.0°
hot_thin	4.035	171.4	28.3°
storm	5.604	238.1	39.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.23
arm width	×1.13
arm waist	×0.80
arm thickness	6.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	34.8°
rear sweep	44.2°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.23
deck gap	31.5 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×1.36
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 9be55419299a✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	7.598 Wh/km
vs baseline	10.3% worse
scenario mean	4.672 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.851 Wh/km
frame mass	173.9 g
material	asa
born	generation 0 via designer

hypothesisAs a final check on the opposite extreme, the designer bets that maximizing width, waist, and thickness together for a very stiff ASA build might reduce vibration-driven losses enough to offset the added mass.

methodArm length up 10%, width up 30% (the widest tried), waist widened 20%, thickness raised to 9.0mm (the thickest); plate grew 10%/5% and thickened 40%, deck gap widened to 35mm, battery wedge flattened to 0°, switched to ASA.

resultValid at 7.598 Wh/km, the worst of the designer's candidates and well behind best-so-far in every scenario (storm 5.85). This closes out the generation confirming that mass dominates the energy budget - no over-built, thickened variant has beaten the lean, slim-waisted design. Next idea: focus the next generation's mutations tightly around the current champion's genome (long arm, slim width/waist, stock thickness) rather than exploring more mass-adding variants.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.903	165.8	26.1°
cold_headwind	4.997	212.3	41.8°
crosswind	4.679	198.8	36.5°
gusty_light	4.435	188.4	34.5°
hot_thin	4.171	177.2	28.6°
storm	5.851	248.6	42.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.10
arm width	×1.30
arm waist	×1.20
arm thickness	9.0 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×1.10
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	35.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.40
material	asa

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate ac6152897717

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	7.761 Wh/km
vs baseline	12.7% worse
scenario mean	4.778 Wh/km
worst scenario	5.966 Wh/km
frame mass	196.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 0 via seed

hypothesisWith no prior generation to learn from, this seed bets that a longer, heavier-duty arm and a much stiffer plate will buy enough stability margin to be worth the extra mass.

methodArms stretched 26% longer and thickened to 6.8mm, width up 10% but the waist pinched 18% slimmer; both sweep angles pushed out to roughly 40°; the plate grew 5% in each dimension and was thickened 42%, sitting on a steeper 10.5° battery wedge.

resultIt landed at 7.761 Wh/km, worse than the stock baseline in every single scenario, worst in storm at 5.97. The added length and heavily reinforced plate clearly cost more in power draw than they returned in robustness, so it stays well behind best-so-far. Next idea: try the longer arm alone, without the 42% plate thickening, to see how much of the penalty came from the plate versus the arm.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	4.050	172.1	25.9°
cold_headwind	5.033	213.8	40.6°
crosswind	4.762	202.3	35.3°
gusty_light	4.541	192.9	33.8°
hot_thin	4.314	183.3	28.3°
storm	5.966	253.4	38.3°

gene	value
arm length	×1.26
arm width	×1.10
arm waist	×0.82
arm thickness	6.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	39.8°
rear sweep	39.4°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	41.9 mm
battery wedge	10.5°
plate thickness	×1.42
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 89ffb906b148✦ claude-designed

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
energy score	8.479 Wh/km
vs baseline	23.1% worse
scenario mean	5.216 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.527 Wh/km
frame mass	255.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 0 via designer

hypothesisAs the designer's opening move, it plays it safe on sweep and deck gap (keeping them at stock) while betting that scaling every structural dimension up uniformly would buy stability without tripping any constraint.

methodArm length, width, and waist all scaled up 10-25%, thickness raised to 8.5mm; sweep and deck gap left at stock; plate grew 10% in each dimension and thickened 40%, on a modest 5° battery wedge, in carbon-fiber plate.

resultValid but the worst-performing candidate in the generation at 8.479 Wh/km, trailing baseline in every scenario (storm 6.53). Playing it safe on sweep/deck-gap avoided invalidation, but uniformly overscaling every structural gene piled on mass that the fitness metric punishes directly. Next idea: the designer should treat 'scale everything up' as a dead end and instead try scaling dimensions in different directions (some up, some down) as the next candidate does.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	4.416	187.6	25.9°
cold_headwind	5.475	232.6	40.8°
crosswind	5.207	221.2	35.5°
gusty_light	4.955	210.5	33.8°
hot_thin	4.715	200.3	28.2°
storm	6.527	277.3	38.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.25
arm width	×1.25
arm waist	×1.10
arm thickness	8.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.4°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.10
plate width	×1.10
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	5.0°
plate thickness	×1.40
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 8ecbc7aa7d42

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	95.0 g
material	petg
born	generation 0 via seed

hypothesisThis seed explores the aggressive end of the drag-reduction space, betting that a sharply swept-back rear arm and a slender arm waist could cut weight and frontal area.

methodWidth grew 18% while the waist was slimmed sharply to 56% of stock and thickness dropped to 4.5mm; rear sweep was pushed way out to 60.2°, plate thickness bumped 21%, and the frame switched to PETG.

resultInvalid: the arm tongue's mounting bolts miss the main plate entirely. The extreme rear sweep combined with the slim waist moved the arm root far enough that it no longer lines up with the fixed bolt pattern. Lesson: rear sweep and waist ratio need to be co-constrained so the tongue geometry stays registered to the plate. Worth testing next: cap rear sweep well below 60° whenever waist ratio drops much under 0.8.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.96
arm width	×1.18
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	31.5°
rear sweep	60.2°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	39.0 mm
battery wedge	14.7°
plate thickness	×1.21
material	petg

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 6d3cc3001311

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	161.3 g
material	asa
born	generation 0 via seed

hypothesisThis seed chases a heavily reinforced, oversized frame, betting that thicker arms and a tougher ASA plate would improve durability margins even at some weight cost.

methodArms lengthened 31% and thickened to 8.5mm, width up 23%; front sweep pushed to 40°; plate footprint shrank slightly (×0.92/×0.87) while deck gap tightened to 21.7mm and plate thickness rose 52%, in ASA.

resultInvalid: the 21.7mm deck gap leaves no room for the FC/ESC stack. Shrinking the plate footprint while thickening the plate itself squeezed the internal deck space below what the electronics need. Lesson: deck gap has a hard floor that must be checked independently of plate size/thickness trade-offs. Next idea: keep deck gap pinned above ~28mm whenever plate footprint is shrunk below stock.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.31
arm width	×1.23
arm waist	×1.02
arm thickness	8.5 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	40.0°
rear sweep	34.7°
plate length	×0.92
plate width	×0.87
deck gap	21.7 mm
battery wedge	12.7°
plate thickness	×1.52
material	asa

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate bed953f57acd

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	88.7 g
material	asa
born	generation 0 via seed

hypothesisThis seed tests a compact, high-sweep frame, betting that shorter/narrower arms and pronounced fore-and-aft sweep would cut mass and drag.

methodArms shortened to 78% of stock length and narrowed to 81% width, but waist widened 21%, with sweep pushed to 51.3° front and 45.0° rear; plate grew modestly (×1.04/×1.13), deck gap tightened to 21.5mm, and material switched to ASA.

resultInvalid: same failure mode as the previous candidate — deck gap of 21.5mm is too small for the FC/ESC stack. The combination of compact arms with an enlarged plate again ate into the internal deck clearance. This reinforces that deck gap needs its own explicit floor in the mutation rules. Next idea: treat deck gap as a protected gene that mutation operators can't push below a safe minimum regardless of other changes.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×1.21
arm thickness	4.8 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	51.3°
rear sweep	45.0°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.13
deck gap	21.5 mm
battery wedge	5.2°
plate thickness	×1.38
material	asa

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 7cbc2d5ef0dc

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.66 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	107.6 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 0 via seed

hypothesisThis seed bets that a shorter, wider arm paired with a lightweight PA12-CF material could shave weight while a thickened plate covers the structural risk.

methodArm length trimmed to 87%, width up 28%, waist widened 20%, thickness reduced to 5.2mm; sweep raised to 33.3°/44.8°; plate width trimmed 7%, plate thickness nominally raised 33%, material switched to PA12-CF.

resultInvalid: the resulting plate web is only 0.66mm, far under the 1.90mm stock minimum. Even though the thickness multiplier looks like an increase, the narrower plate footprint combined with the softer PA12-CF baseline left too little material once mounting cutouts were accounted for. Lesson: a positive plate-thickness multiplier alone doesn't guarantee a safe web — footprint shrinkage can undercut it. Next idea: check computed web thickness directly against the material's minimum rather than trusting the multiplier.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.87
arm width	×1.28
arm waist	×1.20
arm thickness	5.2 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	33.3°
rear sweep	44.8°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×0.93
deck gap	34.2 mm
battery wedge	6.7°
plate thickness	×1.33
material	pa12_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate c49a7137ae88

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.59 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	84.3 g
material	asa
born	generation 0 via seed

hypothesisThis seed pushes toward an aggressively lightweight frame, betting that a longer sweep-heavy arm on a thinned ASA plate would still hold together.

methodWidth up 29%, waist widened 13%, thickness cut to 4.6mm; both sweep angles raised toward 48-50°; plate lengthened 17% but plate thickness actually cut to 81% of stock, in ASA.

resultInvalid: plate web comes out at just 0.59mm against the 1.90mm stock requirement. Cutting plate thickness below stock while also stretching the plate's length was always going to starve the web. Lesson: any plate-thickness multiplier under 1.0 is high-risk and should be flagged before simulation. Next idea: exclude sub-1.0 plate-thickness multipliers from future seeds unless paired with a footprint shrink, not a stretch.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×1.29
arm waist	×1.13
arm thickness	4.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	48.5°
rear sweep	50.3°
plate length	×1.17
plate width	×0.92
deck gap	27.7 mm
battery wedge	1.8°
plate thickness	×0.81
material	asa

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 8b125eb28127

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.06 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	153.2 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 0 via seed

hypothesisThis seed tests a near-stock plate thickness combined with a thick, stubby-waisted arm, betting the arm reinforcement alone would be enough margin.

methodArm length and width left close to stock, waist narrowed to 76%, thickness boosted to 8.9mm; sweep raised to 38.6°/41.9°; plate kept close to stock size with thickness nudged just 2% above stock, in PET-CF.

resultInvalid: plate web measures 1.06mm, still well under the 1.90mm minimum despite the thickness multiplier being barely above 1.0. This shows the margin needed is larger than a 2% bump can cover once the waist and sweep changes are factored in. Lesson: plate web sensitivity to waist/sweep combinations is stronger than expected, even when plate genes are almost untouched. Next idea: run a quick web-thickness estimate before committing a seed whenever waist ratio drops under ~0.8.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.02
arm width	×0.98
arm waist	×0.76
arm thickness	8.9 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	38.6°
rear sweep	41.9°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×0.95
deck gap	36.5 mm
battery wedge	10.0°
plate thickness	×1.02
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate c34eb7329dd8

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.48 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	101.1 g
material	asa
born	generation 0 via seed

hypothesisThis seed explores a long, narrow-plate frame with high sweep, betting that shrinking plate width while keeping decent plate thickness would be safe.

methodArm lengthened 27% but width cut to 78%, waist widened 7%, thickness 5.4mm; sweep pushed to 42.9°/52.1°; plate width cut to 86% of stock while thickness rose 30%, in ASA.

resultInvalid: plate web still only 1.48mm versus the 1.90mm floor, despite a 30% thickness increase. The 14% narrower plate footprint ate more margin than the thickness gain provided. Lesson: narrowing plate width is a bigger risk to web integrity than plate-thickness multipliers can offset. Next idea: keep plate width multiplier close to or above 1.0 whenever plate thickness is also being pushed up, rather than trading one against the other.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×1.07
arm thickness	5.4 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	42.9°
rear sweep	52.1°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×0.86
deck gap	33.6 mm
battery wedge	8.5°
plate thickness	×1.30
material	asa

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 14d6fcbb04f9

drag to rotate · scroll to zoom · double-click resets

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	137.5 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 0 via seed

hypothesisThis seed bets on the most extreme sweep-and-waist combination yet, hoping a lighter-weight PA12-CF build with only mild plate thickening would still clear constraints.

methodArm length up 12%, width up 26%, waist widened 14%, thickness 6.6mm; sweep pushed hardest of all seeds to 44.2°/54.3°; deck gap widened to 43.4mm, plate thickness raised just 6%, in PA12-CF.

resultInvalid: plate web collapses to just 0.32mm, the thinnest of all the failures, against the 1.90mm requirement. The combination of high sweep, widened waist, and only a token 6% plate-thickness bump left almost no material margin. Lesson: extreme sweep angles compound with waist widening to demand much larger plate-thickness margins than a small percentage increase provides. Next idea: whenever sweep exceeds ~45°, require plate thickness multiplier well above 1.2 as a baseline safety margin.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.12
arm width	×1.26
arm waist	×1.14
arm thickness	6.6 mm
tip thickness	×1.00
arm cutouts	×0.00
front sweep	44.2°
rear sweep	54.3°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×0.91
deck gap	43.4 mm
battery wedge	10.7°
plate thickness	×1.06
material	pa12_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

evolved parts (deck + arms)fixed kitairflow (RANS streamlines)

drag to rotate · ⌘-drag pans · scroll to zoom · double-click resets · esc closes

only the evolved parts (deck + arms) are shown · fixed kit hidden

baseline

this candidate

evolved parts only · the two models rotate and zoom in sync

net change solid color = this candidate · gray ghost = baseline · fixed kit hidden

only the parts evolution changes are shown, superimposed

lineage trail solid color = this candidate · gray ghosts = the baseline + every ancestor, fainter = older

the whole lineage superimposed · evolved parts only

solid = current step · gray ghost = next in line · click a thumbnail to morph there · ←/→ step · evolved parts only

baseline

view on GitHub

Airloom — run run_20260714_015948

the game board

bolted down — the fixed kit

hard constraints (fitness = ∞, no flight)

the levers — 14 genes

the weather — every candidate flies all of it

the process

the loop

the physics

the audit

generation 79

generation 78

generation 77

generation 76

generation 75

generation 74

generation 73

generation 72

generation 71

generation 70

generation 69

generation 68

generation 67

generation 66

generation 65

generation 64

generation 63

generation 62

generation 61

generation 60

generation 59

generation 58

generation 57

generation 56

generation 55

generation 54

generation 53

generation 52

generation 51

generation 50

generation 49

generation 48

generation 47

generation 46

generation 45

generation 44

generation 43

generation 42

generation 41

generation 40

generation 39

generation 38

generation 37

generation 36

generation 35

generation 34

generation 33

generation 32

generation 31

generation 30

generation 29

generation 28

generation 27

generation 26

generation 25

generation 24

generation 23

generation 22

Airloom — run `run_20260714_015948`