Airloom — run `run_20260713_230656`

29 generation(s) · 408 candidates (164 valid) · regenerated 00:57:27

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.

designer inspiration · inspirations/frogs.md

# Frogs

Think of the shapes of frogs when coming up with new ideas.

- A frog at rest is a low, wide squat: mass carried close to the ground
  plane, limbs folded tight against the body. What is the quadcopter
  equivalent of tucking in — minimal deck gap, battery laid flat, arms
  hugging the plate?
- A frog mid-leap is the opposite: limbs at full asymmetric extension,
  rear legs long and powerful, front legs short and braced for landing.
  Try strongly asymmetric sweep — long swept-back rear arms, short
  forward arms.
- Webbed feet spread load over area with almost no mass. Where can a
  wide, thin structure replace a thick one?
- Frog skin is compliant; frogs absorb landings through flex, not
  stiffness. Consider the flexible filaments with generous arm width
  instead of maximum-stiffness carbon.

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).g ⟳pivot 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 — 12 genes

	min	seed	max
arm length	×0.75	×1.00	×1.35
arm width	×0.75	×1.00	×1.40
arm waist	×0.55	×1.00	×1.30
arm thickness (mm)	4	6	9
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	×0.70	×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.

generation 28

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)	5
pivot crosses (far parent)	7

mutation σ 0.077 of gene range
pivot σ 0.230 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-opus-4-8

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 8.976, g1 8.976, g2 8.976, g3 8.911, g4 8.849, g5 8.804, g6 8.417, g7 8.417, g8 8.417, g9 8.417, g10 8.417, g11 8.417, g12 8.191, g13 8.191, g14 8.191, g15 8.182, g16 8.182, g17 8.182, g18 8.161, g19 8.161, g20 8.126, g21 8.126, g22 8.126, g23 8.126, g24 8.126, g25 8.126, g26 8.126, g27 8.126 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 15 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 8.126 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.935, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 32.8942, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.5433, "plate_length_scale": 0.9996, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.0316, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.5167, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7191, "material": 0.0002} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.34, "crosswind": 4.98, "gusty_light": 4.5, "hot_thin": 3.69, "storm": 6.45}
fitness 8.156 Wh/km-agg, frame 84 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.9674, "arm_width_scale": 0.7557, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 32.9466, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.3742, "plate_length_scale": 0.997, "plate_width_scale": 0.9828, "deck_gap": 0.0303, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.763, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7376, "material": 0.0047} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.38, "crosswind": 4.99, "gusty_light": 4.51, "hot_thin": 3.69, "storm": 6.48}
fitness 8.161 Wh/km-agg, frame 84 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.9654, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 32.9374, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.5157, "plate_length_scale": 0.9986, "plate_width_scale": 0.9818, "deck_gap": 0.0304, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.5151, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7556, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.39, "crosswind": 4.99, "gusty_light": 4.51, "hot_thin": 3.68, "storm": 6.49}
fitness 8.163 Wh/km-agg, frame 84 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.9359, "arm_width_scale": 0.8098, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.6674, "rear_sweep_deg": 38.1955, "plate_length_scale": 0.9904, "plate_width_scale": 0.9998, "deck_gap": 0.0319, "battery_wedge_deg": 15.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1422} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.45, "cold_headwind": 6.37, "crosswind": 5.0, "gusty_light": 4.52, "hot_thin": 3.7, "storm": 6.48}
fitness 8.170 Wh/km-agg, frame 84 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.935, "arm_width_scale": 0.7744, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5701, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 32.8942, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.1275, "plate_length_scale": 0.9996, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.0316, "battery_wedge_deg": 15.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7191, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.45, "cold_headwind": 6.39, "crosswind": 5.0, "gusty_light": 4.52, "hot_thin": 3.69, "storm": 6.49}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g18 `44d60067` fitness 9.071 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite's arm sits at floor width with a deep waist (a thin truss) or, when tried otherwise, a full-bulk compression wall that failed outright -- this design tests the untried middle path of a wide-flange arm (width 1.1, only lightly waisted at 0.65, thickness still at floor) carrying moderate front/rear sweep triangulation with plate scales grown per the tongue-bolt rule of thumb, letting fla
- g18 `677ff932` fitness 9.350 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite is 100% carbon at floor arm mass with near-stock geometry — break the material monoculture with genuinely reinforced PET-CF (moderate width/waist/thickness matching the one successful PA12-CF template, thick decks well past the 0.8x printed-material floor) on the exact stock-adjacent geometry already proven valid, isolating whether a tougher material earns back its density penalty once
- g19 `930f0f43` fitness 9.544 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite is carbon at arm-mass floor; PLA+ has never been properly tested (its one random trial failed from arm overstress, not tip deflection), so this design breaks the monoculture with PLA+ on stock-adjacent, low-risk geometry but gives the arm real cross-section (width 1.0, light waist 0.85, thickness 0.007) and plates at 0.85x (above the 0.8x printed-material floor) to finally survive wher
- g19 `99aabf80` fitness 8.671 Wh/km-agg — was: Past probes changed only one lever at a time (wheelbase alone, sweep alone, wedge alone, gap alone) and each underperformed in isolation; this design stacks all four moderately at once: a modest 1.08 wheelbase stretch, real-but-restrained sweep triangulation (37/42) with matching 1.05 plate growth, generous 0.037 deck_gap to starve the dominant rotor/deck-clearance failure mode, and a still-strong
- g19 `cc389578` fitness 8.657 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite shares one trait: frontal area cut via maxed battery wedge on near-stock geometry, so this pivot abandons the wedge entirely (2deg) and instead braces the airframe with genuine sweep triangulation (40/45 vs stock 31.4/36) plus a stretched 1.15 wheelbase for lower disk loading, growing plates 1.10/1.10 to keep tongue bolts anchored and testing whether geometric bracing plus moment-arm r
- g20 `13a83031` fitness 9.313 Wh/km-agg — was: Frog mid-leap asymmetry: soften the failed 30.5/55 deg sweep split to 32/48 deg and grow plate_length/width_scale past the rule-of-thumb minimum (1.15/1.18 vs the ~1.12 needed) so the long swept rear tongue bolts stay anchored, reinvesting the abandoned battery-wedge budget into rear arm reinforcement instead.
- g20 `5e3f8986` fitness 10.562 Wh/km-agg — was: Abandon the all-carbon floor-mass tension-truss for frog-skin compliance: PETG with a wide, only lightly waisted arm and real thickness margin (well past the thickness/waist combo that killed every prior printed-material probe), on safe stock-adjacent geometry so only the material+cross-section axis changes.
- g21 `4c7dffe1` fitness 9.633 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite converges on a floor-mass, deep-waisted (0.55) tension-truss arm that has plateaued at ~8.1 while storm and cold_headwind remain the dominant costs -- webbed-foot logic replaces the narrow thick truss with a wide, barely-waisted, thin flange (width 1.15, waist 1.15, thickness 0.0045) that spreads load over area at similar mass, trading maxed battery wedge (14.5->8) and thin decks (0.72
- g21 `f4c0a73c` fitness 9.932 Wh/km-agg — was: Frog mid-leap asymmetric sweep (rear 55deg vs 36 stock) paired with the proven PA12-CF reinforced arm cross-section from a prior successful probe (width 0.95, waist 0.85, thickness 0.0065), but this time growing plate_length/width_scale to 1.42/1.32 -- well past the ~1.38 the tongue-bolt rule of thumb demands -- so the swept rear tongue bolts stay anchored where the prior attempt's tighter 1.28/1.
- g22 `5fd2ba8e` fitness 9.793 Wh/km-agg — was: Webbed-feet logic isolated as a single clean swap against the elite baseline: keep every proven elite lever (stock-adjacent sweep, unit plate scales, maxed battery wedge, floor-thin carbon) unchanged and only replace the deep-waisted narrow truss arm with a near-maximum-width, minimally-waisted membrane-thin flange that spreads load over area instead of concentrating it in a truss.
- g22 `c9158c37` fitness 9.984 Wh/km-agg — was: Frog mid-leap asymmetry done safely: short braced front arms at the sweep floor paired with long swept rear arms (+12deg over stock) on the already-validated webbed-foot carbon cross-section (width 1.1/waist 1.1/thickness 0.0045), growing plate scales well past the tongue-bolt rule of thumb (1.20/1.18) and reinvesting the abandoned wedge budget into deck_gap margin.
- g23 `79e8d5ee` fitness 10.643 Wh/km-agg — was: Every printed-material and asymmetric-sweep probe so far failed alone (arm deflection or under-grown plates); this pivot commits to frog mid-leap fully -- short braced front arms near stock, rear arms swept far past stock (54 deg) on a wide, lightly-waisted PLA+ arm for skin-like compliance instead of carbon stiffness, with plate scales grown well past the tongue-bolt rule of thumb and printed-mat
- g23 `c213bc81` fitness 9.785 Wh/km-agg — was: Prior webbed-foot swaps always kept the elite's maxed wedge and thin decks, so they never isolated whether area-spread load-bearing itself helps; this pivot abandons the wedge entirely, keeps stock-adjacent sweep, and reinvests the freed budget into a genuinely wide near-max-width, minimally-waisted membrane arm plus generous deck_gap and thicker decks, directly targeting the storm scenario's clea
- g24 `9d305333` fitness 8.770 Wh/km-agg — was: Frog-skin compliance at elite-safe wheelbase and stock-adjacent sweep: a lightly-waisted, moderate-width membrane arm (far from both the deep-waist truss and the failed near-max-bulk flange) paired with generous deck clearance and only a partial battery wedge, testing whether flex-absorbed loads during storm gusts earn back the frontal-area budget spent on clearance.
- g25 `050011cb` fitness 8.578 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite relies on a maxed battery_wedge to shrink frontal area; this pivot abandons that lever entirely for a true frog-at-rest flat-battery posture (wedge ~1 deg) and reinvests the freed budget into a much longer wheelbase (1.20) for lower disk loading, keeping the proven floor carbon truss and stock-adjacent sweep with extra deck_gap margin -- isolating whether power savings from lower disk 
- g25 `31a62df9` fitness 8.893 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite has converged on the same floor-mass carbon truss with wheelbase pinned at 0.93-0.97 (never tested past 1.15) -- this pivot pushes arm_length_scale to 1.30, near the true ceiling, to cut disk loading for real and attack the dominant cold_headwind/hot_thin induced-power costs via geometry rather than the already-maxed battery-wedge trick, keeping the proven-safe floor arm cross-section 
- g25 `dcdebaa9` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: Past printed-material probes always paired reinforcement with stock-ish wheelbase and failed on mass; this design instead stretches arm_length_scale to 1.10 to lower the bending moment and disk loading simultaneously, letting a moderately reinforced PA12-CF arm (width 0.90, waist 0.80, thickness 0.0055) survive storm gust loading through compliance while its mass premium is paid back by reduced in
- g26 `5040a875` fitness 9.009 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate the material axis alone this time with lessons learned from prior invalid printed-material probes: PA12-CF with correctly-sized moderate arm reinforcement and plate_thickness_scale safely above the 0.8 printed floor, on unchanged stock-adjacent geometry so only stiffness-vs-compliance trades against carbon's mass advantage.
- g26 `669b204e` fitness 8.644 Wh/km-agg — was: Stack the two independently-most-competitive prior pivots (long 1.20 wheelbase for lower disk loading, proven-safe floor carbon arm even at that length, plus the maxed battery wedge that every elite relies on) to test whether reduced induced-power cost and reduced frontal area combine additively instead of trading off.
- g27 `76634443` fitness 9.858 Wh/km-agg — was: The two independently-most-promising pivots so far were a long 1.20 wheelbase with the wedge abandoned (8.578) and a standalone webbed-foot swap -- neither has been combined -- so this stacks a near-ceiling 1.22 wheelbase for genuinely lower disk loading with a moderate wide-thin membrane arm whose mass savings help pay for the extra length, reinvesting the freed wedge budget (down to 3deg) into t

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.56 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 4, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 27, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 15, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 25, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 36, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 2, "plates too thin for asa (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 3, "plates too thin for asa (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.35 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.46 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 6, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.57 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.36 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 21, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.17 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.83 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.50 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.94 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.39 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.38 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.81 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.79 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm overstressed (pla_plus)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.72 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.03 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.35 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.07 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.41 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "cold_headwind: battery pack cannot deliver demanded power": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.92 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.15 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.40 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 7, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.12 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.93 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.71 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.30 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.96 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.52 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.15 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.13 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.98 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1}

USER INSPIRATION -- the researcher asked you to draw on the ideas below when proposing designs. Translate them into the genome; do not ignore them:
# Frogs

Think of the shapes of frogs when coming up with new ideas.

- A frog at rest is a low, wide squat: mass carried close to the ground
  plane, limbs folded tight against the body. What is the quadcopter
  equivalent of tucking in — minimal deck gap, battery laid flat, arms
  hugging the plate?
- A frog mid-leap is the opposite: limbs at full asymmetric extension,
  rear legs long and powerful, front legs short and braced for landing.
  Try strongly asymmetric sweep — long swept-back rear arms, short
  forward arms.
- Webbed feet spread load over area with almost no mass. Where can a
  wide, thin structure replace a thick one?
- Frog skin is compliant; frogs absorb landings through flex, not
  stiffness. Consider the flexible filaments with generous arm width
  instead of maximum-stiffness carbon.


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 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 43b307aa — Every previous mid-leap probe died because the swept rear tongues outran the plates, so this one obeys the rule of thumb exactly — front arms at the sweep floor (30 deg, braced and short-loaded) with rear arms swept 14 deg past stock to 50 deg, paid for with plate_length 1.30 / plate_width 1.25 — giving the asymmetric-sweep region its first structurally legal test on a proven carbon cross-section.flew at 9.271 Wh/km
candidate ade55845 — Carbon-at-minimum-cross-section is the monoculture the plateau is built on, and every printed-material probe so far failed for an avoidable reason (under-reinforced arm or sub-1.6 mm decks) rather than on physics — so this gives PA12-CF genuine compliance margin (width 1.05, light 0.9 waist, 7 mm-class thickness, 2.0 mm decks) on a stretched 1.05 wheelbase that lowers the bending moment, testing wflew at 9.838 Wh/km
candidate 6c683d8d — rejected pre-flight (arm root tongues collide on the main plate) — The elite family is one idea repeated — a floor-mass carbon truss on a near-stock wheelbase whose only real trick is a maxed battery wedge to shave frontal area — so this is the true frog-at-rest opposite: shrink the whole airframe (wheelbase 0.86, tucked 0.026 deck gap) and lay the battery completely flat, betting that a smaller, lighter, lower machine beats a stock-sized one wearing an aerodynam
candidate 3fc0213b — rejected pre-flight (rotor too close to deck/battery) — Frog-at-rest pivot retried without the tongue collision: keep the flat battery (wedge 0), tucked short wheelbase and area-spreading moderate arm cross-section, but open the sweeps apart from stock (36/42 instead of 31/36) so the wide arm roots no longer crowd each other on the main plate, and grow the plates past unity to keep the tongue bolts anchored.

96a6924c438d

8.126 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	6.34
crosswind	4.98
gusty_light	4.50
hot_thin	3.69
storm	6.45

56417773c65d

8.156 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	6.38
crosswind	4.99
gusty_light	4.51
hot_thin	3.69
storm	6.48

ccfb32cf7a19

8.249 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.46
cold_headwind	6.48
crosswind	5.05
gusty_light	4.56
hot_thin	3.70
storm	6.56

2620b6573517

8.370 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.48
cold_headwind	6.61
crosswind	5.12
gusty_light	4.61
hot_thin	3.73
storm	6.67

b4288e3e2847

8.507 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.54
cold_headwind	6.71
crosswind	5.19
gusty_light	4.69
hot_thin	3.79
storm	6.78

43b307aa867f

9.271 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.72
cold_headwind	7.46
crosswind	5.66
gusty_light	5.04
hot_thin	3.98
storm	7.38

ade558456ae4

9.838 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.83
cold_headwind	7.97
crosswind	6.03
gusty_light	5.33
hot_thin	4.09
storm	7.87

8cab9595d797

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_top 1.26 mm, stock 1.75 mm)

a85e6980793b

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

1a586f0dc9ed

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

3fc66ed6aa29

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_top 0.97 mm, stock 1.75 mm)

0448ff61ccd9

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

a9a4772b0de5

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

aa36468d347f

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_top 1.23 mm, stock 1.75 mm)

d14f60a738f4

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)

8cc40ad1b47f

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.16 mm, stock 1.47 mm)

generation 27

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 0.079 of gene range
pivot σ 0.237 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 8.976, g1 8.976, g2 8.976, g3 8.911, g4 8.849, g5 8.804, g6 8.417, g7 8.417, g8 8.417, g9 8.417, g10 8.417, g11 8.417, g12 8.191, g13 8.191, g14 8.191, g15 8.182, g16 8.182, g17 8.182, g18 8.161, g19 8.161, g20 8.126, g21 8.126, g22 8.126, g23 8.126, g24 8.126, g25 8.126, g26 8.126 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 14 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 8.126 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.935, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 32.8942, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.5433, "plate_length_scale": 0.9996, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.0316, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.5167, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7191, "material": 0.0002} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.34, "crosswind": 4.98, "gusty_light": 4.5, "hot_thin": 3.69, "storm": 6.45}
fitness 8.156 Wh/km-agg, frame 84 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.9674, "arm_width_scale": 0.7557, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 32.9466, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.3742, "plate_length_scale": 0.997, "plate_width_scale": 0.9828, "deck_gap": 0.0303, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.763, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7376, "material": 0.0047} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.38, "crosswind": 4.99, "gusty_light": 4.51, "hot_thin": 3.69, "storm": 6.48}
fitness 8.161 Wh/km-agg, frame 84 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.9654, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 32.9374, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.5157, "plate_length_scale": 0.9986, "plate_width_scale": 0.9818, "deck_gap": 0.0304, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.5151, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7556, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.39, "crosswind": 4.99, "gusty_light": 4.51, "hot_thin": 3.68, "storm": 6.49}
fitness 8.163 Wh/km-agg, frame 84 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.9359, "arm_width_scale": 0.8098, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.6674, "rear_sweep_deg": 38.1955, "plate_length_scale": 0.9904, "plate_width_scale": 0.9998, "deck_gap": 0.0319, "battery_wedge_deg": 15.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1422} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.45, "cold_headwind": 6.37, "crosswind": 5.0, "gusty_light": 4.52, "hot_thin": 3.7, "storm": 6.48}
fitness 8.170 Wh/km-agg, frame 84 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.935, "arm_width_scale": 0.7744, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5701, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 32.8942, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.1275, "plate_length_scale": 0.9996, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.0316, "battery_wedge_deg": 15.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7191, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.45, "cold_headwind": 6.39, "crosswind": 5.0, "gusty_light": 4.52, "hot_thin": 3.69, "storm": 6.49}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g18 `364861df` fitness 8.621 Wh/km-agg — was: The 25+12+14 rotor/deck-clearance rejects in the failure histogram have kept every elite's deck_gap pinned at 0.03-0.032 and wedge below 14.5, so this design spends real standoff mass to open deck_gap to 0.040 and buys enough vertical margin to combine the never-tried pairing of a stretched 1.15 wheelbase (lower disk loading) with the true 15deg wedge ceiling, testing whether clearance rather than
- g18 `44d60067` fitness 9.071 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite's arm sits at floor width with a deep waist (a thin truss) or, when tried otherwise, a full-bulk compression wall that failed outright -- this design tests the untried middle path of a wide-flange arm (width 1.1, only lightly waisted at 0.65, thickness still at floor) carrying moderate front/rear sweep triangulation with plate scales grown per the tongue-bolt rule of thumb, letting fla
- g18 `677ff932` fitness 9.350 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite is 100% carbon at floor arm mass with near-stock geometry — break the material monoculture with genuinely reinforced PET-CF (moderate width/waist/thickness matching the one successful PA12-CF template, thick decks well past the 0.8x printed-material floor) on the exact stock-adjacent geometry already proven valid, isolating whether a tougher material earns back its density penalty once
- g19 `930f0f43` fitness 9.544 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite is carbon at arm-mass floor; PLA+ has never been properly tested (its one random trial failed from arm overstress, not tip deflection), so this design breaks the monoculture with PLA+ on stock-adjacent, low-risk geometry but gives the arm real cross-section (width 1.0, light waist 0.85, thickness 0.007) and plates at 0.85x (above the 0.8x printed-material floor) to finally survive wher
- g19 `99aabf80` fitness 8.671 Wh/km-agg — was: Past probes changed only one lever at a time (wheelbase alone, sweep alone, wedge alone, gap alone) and each underperformed in isolation; this design stacks all four moderately at once: a modest 1.08 wheelbase stretch, real-but-restrained sweep triangulation (37/42) with matching 1.05 plate growth, generous 0.037 deck_gap to starve the dominant rotor/deck-clearance failure mode, and a still-strong
- g19 `cc389578` fitness 8.657 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite shares one trait: frontal area cut via maxed battery wedge on near-stock geometry, so this pivot abandons the wedge entirely (2deg) and instead braces the airframe with genuine sweep triangulation (40/45 vs stock 31.4/36) plus a stretched 1.15 wheelbase for lower disk loading, growing plates 1.10/1.10 to keep tongue bolts anchored and testing whether geometric bracing plus moment-arm r
- g20 `13a83031` fitness 9.313 Wh/km-agg — was: Frog mid-leap asymmetry: soften the failed 30.5/55 deg sweep split to 32/48 deg and grow plate_length/width_scale past the rule-of-thumb minimum (1.15/1.18 vs the ~1.12 needed) so the long swept rear tongue bolts stay anchored, reinvesting the abandoned battery-wedge budget into rear arm reinforcement instead.
- g20 `5e3f8986` fitness 10.562 Wh/km-agg — was: Abandon the all-carbon floor-mass tension-truss for frog-skin compliance: PETG with a wide, only lightly waisted arm and real thickness margin (well past the thickness/waist combo that killed every prior printed-material probe), on safe stock-adjacent geometry so only the material+cross-section axis changes.
- g21 `4c7dffe1` fitness 9.633 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite converges on a floor-mass, deep-waisted (0.55) tension-truss arm that has plateaued at ~8.1 while storm and cold_headwind remain the dominant costs -- webbed-foot logic replaces the narrow thick truss with a wide, barely-waisted, thin flange (width 1.15, waist 1.15, thickness 0.0045) that spreads load over area at similar mass, trading maxed battery wedge (14.5->8) and thin decks (0.72
- g21 `f4c0a73c` fitness 9.932 Wh/km-agg — was: Frog mid-leap asymmetric sweep (rear 55deg vs 36 stock) paired with the proven PA12-CF reinforced arm cross-section from a prior successful probe (width 0.95, waist 0.85, thickness 0.0065), but this time growing plate_length/width_scale to 1.42/1.32 -- well past the ~1.38 the tongue-bolt rule of thumb demands -- so the swept rear tongue bolts stay anchored where the prior attempt's tighter 1.28/1.
- g22 `5fd2ba8e` fitness 9.793 Wh/km-agg — was: Webbed-feet logic isolated as a single clean swap against the elite baseline: keep every proven elite lever (stock-adjacent sweep, unit plate scales, maxed battery wedge, floor-thin carbon) unchanged and only replace the deep-waisted narrow truss arm with a near-maximum-width, minimally-waisted membrane-thin flange that spreads load over area instead of concentrating it in a truss.
- g22 `c9158c37` fitness 9.984 Wh/km-agg — was: Frog mid-leap asymmetry done safely: short braced front arms at the sweep floor paired with long swept rear arms (+12deg over stock) on the already-validated webbed-foot carbon cross-section (width 1.1/waist 1.1/thickness 0.0045), growing plate scales well past the tongue-bolt rule of thumb (1.20/1.18) and reinvesting the abandoned wedge budget into deck_gap margin.
- g23 `79e8d5ee` fitness 10.643 Wh/km-agg — was: Every printed-material and asymmetric-sweep probe so far failed alone (arm deflection or under-grown plates); this pivot commits to frog mid-leap fully -- short braced front arms near stock, rear arms swept far past stock (54 deg) on a wide, lightly-waisted PLA+ arm for skin-like compliance instead of carbon stiffness, with plate scales grown well past the tongue-bolt rule of thumb and printed-mat
- g23 `c213bc81` fitness 9.785 Wh/km-agg — was: Prior webbed-foot swaps always kept the elite's maxed wedge and thin decks, so they never isolated whether area-spread load-bearing itself helps; this pivot abandons the wedge entirely, keeps stock-adjacent sweep, and reinvests the freed budget into a genuinely wide near-max-width, minimally-waisted membrane arm plus generous deck_gap and thicker decks, directly targeting the storm scenario's clea
- g24 `9d305333` fitness 8.770 Wh/km-agg — was: Frog-skin compliance at elite-safe wheelbase and stock-adjacent sweep: a lightly-waisted, moderate-width membrane arm (far from both the deep-waist truss and the failed near-max-bulk flange) paired with generous deck clearance and only a partial battery wedge, testing whether flex-absorbed loads during storm gusts earn back the frontal-area budget spent on clearance.
- g25 `050011cb` fitness 8.578 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite relies on a maxed battery_wedge to shrink frontal area; this pivot abandons that lever entirely for a true frog-at-rest flat-battery posture (wedge ~1 deg) and reinvests the freed budget into a much longer wheelbase (1.20) for lower disk loading, keeping the proven floor carbon truss and stock-adjacent sweep with extra deck_gap margin -- isolating whether power savings from lower disk 
- g25 `31a62df9` fitness 8.893 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite has converged on the same floor-mass carbon truss with wheelbase pinned at 0.93-0.97 (never tested past 1.15) -- this pivot pushes arm_length_scale to 1.30, near the true ceiling, to cut disk loading for real and attack the dominant cold_headwind/hot_thin induced-power costs via geometry rather than the already-maxed battery-wedge trick, keeping the proven-safe floor arm cross-section 
- g25 `dcdebaa9` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: Past printed-material probes always paired reinforcement with stock-ish wheelbase and failed on mass; this design instead stretches arm_length_scale to 1.10 to lower the bending moment and disk loading simultaneously, letting a moderately reinforced PA12-CF arm (width 0.90, waist 0.80, thickness 0.0055) survive storm gust loading through compliance while its mass premium is paid back by reduced in
- g26 `5040a875` fitness 9.009 Wh/km-agg — was: Isolate the material axis alone this time with lessons learned from prior invalid printed-material probes: PA12-CF with correctly-sized moderate arm reinforcement and plate_thickness_scale safely above the 0.8 printed floor, on unchanged stock-adjacent geometry so only stiffness-vs-compliance trades against carbon's mass advantage.
- g26 `669b204e` fitness 8.644 Wh/km-agg — was: Stack the two independently-most-competitive prior pivots (long 1.20 wheelbase for lower disk loading, proven-safe floor carbon arm even at that length, plus the maxed battery wedge that every elite relies on) to test whether reduced induced-power cost and reduced frontal area combine additively instead of trading off.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.56 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 4, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 27, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 15, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 22, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 36, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 2, "plates too thin for asa (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 3, "plates too thin for asa (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.35 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.46 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 6, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.57 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.36 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 21, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.17 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.83 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.50 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.94 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.39 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.38 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.81 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.79 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm overstressed (pla_plus)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.72 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.03 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.35 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.07 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.41 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "cold_headwind: battery pack cannot deliver demanded power": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.92 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.15 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.40 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 7, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.12 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.93 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.71 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.30 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.96 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.52 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 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 0.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.13 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.98 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2}

USER INSPIRATION -- the researcher asked you to draw on the ideas below when proposing designs. Translate them into the genome; do not ignore them:
# Frogs

Think of the shapes of frogs when coming up with new ideas.

- A frog at rest is a low, wide squat: mass carried close to the ground
  plane, limbs folded tight against the body. What is the quadcopter
  equivalent of tucking in — minimal deck gap, battery laid flat, arms
  hugging the plate?
- A frog mid-leap is the opposite: limbs at full asymmetric extension,
  rear legs long and powerful, front legs short and braced for landing.
  Try strongly asymmetric sweep — long swept-back rear arms, short
  forward arms.
- Webbed feet spread load over area with almost no mass. Where can a
  wide, thin structure replace a thick one?
- Frog skin is compliant; frogs absorb landings through flex, not
  stiffness. Consider the flexible filaments with generous arm width
  instead of maximum-stiffness carbon.


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 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 76634443 — The two independently-most-promising pivots so far were a long 1.20 wheelbase with the wedge abandoned (8.578) and a standalone webbed-foot swap -- neither has been combined -- so this stacks a near-ceiling 1.22 wheelbase for genuinely lower disk loading with a moderate wide-thin membrane arm whose mass savings help pay for the extra length, reinvesting the freed wedge budget (down to 3deg) into tflew at 9.858 Wh/km
candidate 5b85f98f — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Every elite spends real frontal-area budget on a maxed 14.5-15deg battery wedge while sitting at floor-mass truss geometry, so this pivot is true frog-at-rest: flatten the battery to near 0deg, tuck deck_gap down to the FC-stack safety margin (0.026), and swap the deep-waisted truss for a wide, barely-waisted, thin membrane arm that spreads load over area instead of frontal-drag tricks, on stock-a
candidate 33f03c59 — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — Prior frog-mid-leap probes always confounded the asymmetric sweep with a material swap or arm-cross-section change and all landed 15-30% worse, so this isolates the sweep axis alone: short near-floor front arms, a long 50deg swept rear, plates grown to 1.20/1.15 per the tongue-bolt rule of thumb (safely past the ~14deg-over-tolerance requirement), while keeping the elite's proven floor carbon trus
candidate ec4455f9 — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — Frog mid-leap corrected: push arm_length_scale to 1.05 for real tip clearance and widen the front/rear sweep gap to 16deg (32/48) instead of the failed 5deg (34/39) spacing, pairing a wide-barely-waisted webbed-foot flange with plate scales grown 0.12-0.15 past unity so the far-swept rear tongue bolts stay anchored on the pinned FC-stack holes.
candidate 67e91733 — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — True frog-at-rest tuck: abandon the elite's maxed battery wedge for a flat 1deg posture and shrink deck_gap to just above the FC-stack floor, keeping arm_length_scale and sweeps in the elite-validated safe zone (avoiding the overlap that killed the 0.87-length probe) while swapping the carbon truss for a properly cross-sectioned, compliant PLA+ arm and printed-floor-thickness decks to test frog-sk

96a6924c438d

8.126 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	6.34
crosswind	4.98
gusty_light	4.50
hot_thin	3.69
storm	6.45

56417773c65d

8.156 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	6.38
crosswind	4.99
gusty_light	4.51
hot_thin	3.69
storm	6.48

501d7866191e

8.171 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.45
cold_headwind	6.38
crosswind	5.00
gusty_light	4.53
hot_thin	3.70
storm	6.49

7aedc177cdfb

8.232 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.47
cold_headwind	6.45
crosswind	5.02
gusty_light	4.56
hot_thin	3.71
storm	6.55

dc9e7275a2b2

8.254 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.46
cold_headwind	6.49
crosswind	5.03
gusty_light	4.56
hot_thin	3.71
storm	6.57

a33f14634228

9.059 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.64
cold_headwind	7.27
crosswind	5.57
gusty_light	4.95
hot_thin	3.88
storm	7.23

7663444320d8

9.858 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.74
cold_headwind	8.09
crosswind	5.90
gusty_light	5.26
hot_thin	4.02
storm	7.89

1134a413f0fd

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.20 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

b169637eb616

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

159702994b2c

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

49fc02f7b684

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

6e39bd323a4a

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

c54816f31739

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.15 mm, stock 1.47 mm)

736d0ed83bff

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.39 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

9321bb712257

∞ wh/km agg

cold_headwind: battery pack cannot deliver demanded power

calm_warm	3.86
cold_headwind	fail
crosswind	6.33
gusty_light	5.62
hot_thin	4.16
storm	8.54

3da43350fbc4

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.11 mm, stock 1.47 mm)

generation 26

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)	3
pivot crosses (far parent)	7
random immigrants	2

mutation σ 0.082 of gene range
pivot σ 0.245 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 8.976, g1 8.976, g2 8.976, g3 8.911, g4 8.849, g5 8.804, g6 8.417, g7 8.417, g8 8.417, g9 8.417, g10 8.417, g11 8.417, g12 8.191, g13 8.191, g14 8.191, g15 8.182, g16 8.182, g17 8.182, g18 8.161, g19 8.161, g20 8.126, g21 8.126, g22 8.126, g23 8.126, g24 8.126, g25 8.126 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 13 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 8.126 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.935, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 32.8942, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.5433, "plate_length_scale": 0.9996, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.0316, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.5167, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7191, "material": 0.0002} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.34, "crosswind": 4.98, "gusty_light": 4.5, "hot_thin": 3.69, "storm": 6.45}
fitness 8.156 Wh/km-agg, frame 84 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.9674, "arm_width_scale": 0.7557, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 32.9466, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.3742, "plate_length_scale": 0.997, "plate_width_scale": 0.9828, "deck_gap": 0.0303, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.763, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7376, "material": 0.0047} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.38, "crosswind": 4.99, "gusty_light": 4.51, "hot_thin": 3.69, "storm": 6.48}
fitness 8.161 Wh/km-agg, frame 84 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.9654, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 32.9374, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.5157, "plate_length_scale": 0.9986, "plate_width_scale": 0.9818, "deck_gap": 0.0304, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.5151, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7556, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.39, "crosswind": 4.99, "gusty_light": 4.51, "hot_thin": 3.68, "storm": 6.49}
fitness 8.163 Wh/km-agg, frame 84 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.9359, "arm_width_scale": 0.8098, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.6674, "rear_sweep_deg": 38.1955, "plate_length_scale": 0.9904, "plate_width_scale": 0.9998, "deck_gap": 0.0319, "battery_wedge_deg": 15.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1422} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.45, "cold_headwind": 6.37, "crosswind": 5.0, "gusty_light": 4.52, "hot_thin": 3.7, "storm": 6.48}
fitness 8.170 Wh/km-agg, frame 84 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.935, "arm_width_scale": 0.7744, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5701, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 32.8942, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.1275, "plate_length_scale": 0.9996, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.0316, "battery_wedge_deg": 15.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7191, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.45, "cold_headwind": 6.39, "crosswind": 5.0, "gusty_light": 4.52, "hot_thin": 3.69, "storm": 6.49}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g17 `60382b2b` fitness 9.285 Wh/km-agg — was: Break the all-carbon monoculture properly this time: keep the elite's proven safe stock-adjacent geometry (33/37.5 sweep, 1.0/1.0 plates, 0.032 deck_gap) so only the material axis changes, but give PA12-CF real reinforcement -- moderate width and waist (0.95/0.85, not the carbon family's deep truss) and mid-range thickness (0.0065 m) plus plate_thickness_scale 0.95 -- enough margin above the print
- g17 `f9ea3427` fitness 8.792 Wh/km-agg — was: Abandon the maxed-battery-wedge frontal-area trick and the arm's own minimum-mass floor is kept, but this time strength comes from a genuinely full geodesic dome: both sweeps swung far past stock (42/50 vs 31.4/36) with plate scales grown to the rule-of-thumb 1.28/1.24 to keep tongue bolts anchored, and deck_gap opened to 0.038 m to starve the dominant rotor/deck-clearance failure mode outright in
- g18 `364861df` fitness 8.621 Wh/km-agg — was: The 25+12+14 rotor/deck-clearance rejects in the failure histogram have kept every elite's deck_gap pinned at 0.03-0.032 and wedge below 14.5, so this design spends real standoff mass to open deck_gap to 0.040 and buys enough vertical margin to combine the never-tried pairing of a stretched 1.15 wheelbase (lower disk loading) with the true 15deg wedge ceiling, testing whether clearance rather than
- g18 `44d60067` fitness 9.071 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite's arm sits at floor width with a deep waist (a thin truss) or, when tried otherwise, a full-bulk compression wall that failed outright -- this design tests the untried middle path of a wide-flange arm (width 1.1, only lightly waisted at 0.65, thickness still at floor) carrying moderate front/rear sweep triangulation with plate scales grown per the tongue-bolt rule of thumb, letting fla
- g18 `677ff932` fitness 9.350 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite is 100% carbon at floor arm mass with near-stock geometry — break the material monoculture with genuinely reinforced PET-CF (moderate width/waist/thickness matching the one successful PA12-CF template, thick decks well past the 0.8x printed-material floor) on the exact stock-adjacent geometry already proven valid, isolating whether a tougher material earns back its density penalty once
- g19 `930f0f43` fitness 9.544 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite is carbon at arm-mass floor; PLA+ has never been properly tested (its one random trial failed from arm overstress, not tip deflection), so this design breaks the monoculture with PLA+ on stock-adjacent, low-risk geometry but gives the arm real cross-section (width 1.0, light waist 0.85, thickness 0.007) and plates at 0.85x (above the 0.8x printed-material floor) to finally survive wher
- g19 `99aabf80` fitness 8.671 Wh/km-agg — was: Past probes changed only one lever at a time (wheelbase alone, sweep alone, wedge alone, gap alone) and each underperformed in isolation; this design stacks all four moderately at once: a modest 1.08 wheelbase stretch, real-but-restrained sweep triangulation (37/42) with matching 1.05 plate growth, generous 0.037 deck_gap to starve the dominant rotor/deck-clearance failure mode, and a still-strong
- g19 `cc389578` fitness 8.657 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite shares one trait: frontal area cut via maxed battery wedge on near-stock geometry, so this pivot abandons the wedge entirely (2deg) and instead braces the airframe with genuine sweep triangulation (40/45 vs stock 31.4/36) plus a stretched 1.15 wheelbase for lower disk loading, growing plates 1.10/1.10 to keep tongue bolts anchored and testing whether geometric bracing plus moment-arm r
- g20 `13a83031` fitness 9.313 Wh/km-agg — was: Frog mid-leap asymmetry: soften the failed 30.5/55 deg sweep split to 32/48 deg and grow plate_length/width_scale past the rule-of-thumb minimum (1.15/1.18 vs the ~1.12 needed) so the long swept rear tongue bolts stay anchored, reinvesting the abandoned battery-wedge budget into rear arm reinforcement instead.
- g20 `5e3f8986` fitness 10.562 Wh/km-agg — was: Abandon the all-carbon floor-mass tension-truss for frog-skin compliance: PETG with a wide, only lightly waisted arm and real thickness margin (well past the thickness/waist combo that killed every prior printed-material probe), on safe stock-adjacent geometry so only the material+cross-section axis changes.
- g21 `4c7dffe1` fitness 9.633 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite converges on a floor-mass, deep-waisted (0.55) tension-truss arm that has plateaued at ~8.1 while storm and cold_headwind remain the dominant costs -- webbed-foot logic replaces the narrow thick truss with a wide, barely-waisted, thin flange (width 1.15, waist 1.15, thickness 0.0045) that spreads load over area at similar mass, trading maxed battery wedge (14.5->8) and thin decks (0.72
- g21 `f4c0a73c` fitness 9.932 Wh/km-agg — was: Frog mid-leap asymmetric sweep (rear 55deg vs 36 stock) paired with the proven PA12-CF reinforced arm cross-section from a prior successful probe (width 0.95, waist 0.85, thickness 0.0065), but this time growing plate_length/width_scale to 1.42/1.32 -- well past the ~1.38 the tongue-bolt rule of thumb demands -- so the swept rear tongue bolts stay anchored where the prior attempt's tighter 1.28/1.
- g22 `5fd2ba8e` fitness 9.793 Wh/km-agg — was: Webbed-feet logic isolated as a single clean swap against the elite baseline: keep every proven elite lever (stock-adjacent sweep, unit plate scales, maxed battery wedge, floor-thin carbon) unchanged and only replace the deep-waisted narrow truss arm with a near-maximum-width, minimally-waisted membrane-thin flange that spreads load over area instead of concentrating it in a truss.
- g22 `c9158c37` fitness 9.984 Wh/km-agg — was: Frog mid-leap asymmetry done safely: short braced front arms at the sweep floor paired with long swept rear arms (+12deg over stock) on the already-validated webbed-foot carbon cross-section (width 1.1/waist 1.1/thickness 0.0045), growing plate scales well past the tongue-bolt rule of thumb (1.20/1.18) and reinvesting the abandoned wedge budget into deck_gap margin.
- g23 `79e8d5ee` fitness 10.643 Wh/km-agg — was: Every printed-material and asymmetric-sweep probe so far failed alone (arm deflection or under-grown plates); this pivot commits to frog mid-leap fully -- short braced front arms near stock, rear arms swept far past stock (54 deg) on a wide, lightly-waisted PLA+ arm for skin-like compliance instead of carbon stiffness, with plate scales grown well past the tongue-bolt rule of thumb and printed-mat
- g23 `c213bc81` fitness 9.785 Wh/km-agg — was: Prior webbed-foot swaps always kept the elite's maxed wedge and thin decks, so they never isolated whether area-spread load-bearing itself helps; this pivot abandons the wedge entirely, keeps stock-adjacent sweep, and reinvests the freed budget into a genuinely wide near-max-width, minimally-waisted membrane arm plus generous deck_gap and thicker decks, directly targeting the storm scenario's clea
- g24 `9d305333` fitness 8.770 Wh/km-agg — was: Frog-skin compliance at elite-safe wheelbase and stock-adjacent sweep: a lightly-waisted, moderate-width membrane arm (far from both the deep-waist truss and the failed near-max-bulk flange) paired with generous deck clearance and only a partial battery wedge, testing whether flex-absorbed loads during storm gusts earn back the frontal-area budget spent on clearance.
- g25 `050011cb` fitness 8.578 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite relies on a maxed battery_wedge to shrink frontal area; this pivot abandons that lever entirely for a true frog-at-rest flat-battery posture (wedge ~1 deg) and reinvests the freed budget into a much longer wheelbase (1.20) for lower disk loading, keeping the proven floor carbon truss and stock-adjacent sweep with extra deck_gap margin -- isolating whether power savings from lower disk 
- g25 `31a62df9` fitness 8.893 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite has converged on the same floor-mass carbon truss with wheelbase pinned at 0.93-0.97 (never tested past 1.15) -- this pivot pushes arm_length_scale to 1.30, near the true ceiling, to cut disk loading for real and attack the dominant cold_headwind/hot_thin induced-power costs via geometry rather than the already-maxed battery-wedge trick, keeping the proven-safe floor arm cross-section 
- g25 `dcdebaa9` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)) — was: Past printed-material probes always paired reinforcement with stock-ish wheelbase and failed on mass; this design instead stretches arm_length_scale to 1.10 to lower the bending moment and disk loading simultaneously, letting a moderately reinforced PA12-CF arm (width 0.90, waist 0.80, thickness 0.0055) survive storm gust loading through compliance while its mass premium is paid back by reduced in

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.56 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 4, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 27, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 15, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 22, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 34, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 2, "plates too thin for asa (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 3, "plates too thin for asa (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.35 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.46 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 6, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.57 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.36 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 17, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.17 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.83 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.50 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.94 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.39 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.38 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.81 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.79 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm overstressed (pla_plus)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.72 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.03 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.35 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.07 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.41 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "cold_headwind: battery pack cannot deliver demanded power": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.92 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.15 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.40 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 7, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.12 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.93 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.71 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.30 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.96 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.52 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 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 0.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.13 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.98 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1}

USER INSPIRATION -- the researcher asked you to draw on the ideas below when proposing designs. Translate them into the genome; do not ignore them:
# Frogs

Think of the shapes of frogs when coming up with new ideas.

- A frog at rest is a low, wide squat: mass carried close to the ground
  plane, limbs folded tight against the body. What is the quadcopter
  equivalent of tucking in — minimal deck gap, battery laid flat, arms
  hugging the plate?
- A frog mid-leap is the opposite: limbs at full asymmetric extension,
  rear legs long and powerful, front legs short and braced for landing.
  Try strongly asymmetric sweep — long swept-back rear arms, short
  forward arms.
- Webbed feet spread load over area with almost no mass. Where can a
  wide, thin structure replace a thick one?
- Frog skin is compliant; frogs absorb landings through flex, not
  stiffness. Consider the flexible filaments with generous arm width
  instead of maximum-stiffness carbon.


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 669b204e — Stack the two independently-most-competitive prior pivots (long 1.20 wheelbase for lower disk loading, proven-safe floor carbon arm even at that length, plus the maxed battery wedge that every elite relies on) to test whether reduced induced-power cost and reduced frontal area combine additively instead of trading off.flew at 8.644 Wh/km
candidate 5040a875 — Isolate the material axis alone this time with lessons learned from prior invalid printed-material probes: PA12-CF with correctly-sized moderate arm reinforcement and plate_thickness_scale safely above the 0.8 printed floor, on unchanged stock-adjacent geometry so only stiffness-vs-compliance trades against carbon's mass advantage.flew at 9.009 Wh/km
candidate fd550fc6 — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — True frog-at-rest: abandon the maxed-wedge frontal-area trick entirely for a flat, low battery posture and pull the wheelbase in short with minimal deck standoff, testing whether a genuinely tucked low-profile mass distribution (not a tilted battery) is what actually saves power in crosswind/storm.
candidate 62c4445e — rejected pre-flight (rotor too close to deck/battery) — True frog-at-rest tuck: fix the rotor-overlap failure by restoring arm_length_scale to the elite-proven 0.95 (not 0.85) while abandoning the maxed battery-wedge trick for a flat, squat posture (wedge ~1 deg) and pulling deck_gap down to a tucked 0.027 m -- just above the 0.023 m FC-stack floor -- reinvesting the freed frontal-area budget into genuine low-profile mass distribution instead of wedge

96a6924c438d

8.126 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	6.34
crosswind	4.98
gusty_light	4.50
hot_thin	3.69
storm	6.45

56417773c65d

8.156 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	6.38
crosswind	4.99
gusty_light	4.51
hot_thin	3.69
storm	6.48

5cbc929e749b

8.227 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.47
cold_headwind	6.44
crosswind	5.01
gusty_light	4.55
hot_thin	3.71
storm	6.54

669b204e3a87

8.644 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.53
cold_headwind	6.89
crosswind	5.30
gusty_light	4.75
hot_thin	3.78
storm	6.90

bb057bd112dc

8.932 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.59
cold_headwind	7.18
crosswind	5.45
gusty_light	4.88
hot_thin	3.83
storm	7.13

5040a875fdc8

9.009 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.63
cold_headwind	7.22
crosswind	5.55
gusty_light	4.93
hot_thin	3.88
storm	7.19

145d8653720b

10.297 wh/km agg

calm_warm	4.03
cold_headwind	8.34
crosswind	6.27
gusty_light	5.57
hot_thin	4.31
storm	8.26

fa2acbceb6cc

10.389 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.99
cold_headwind	8.47
crosswind	6.28
gusty_light	5.58
hot_thin	4.27
storm	8.32

f2acea4ec6c2

∞ wh/km agg

cold_headwind: battery pack cannot deliver demanded power

calm_warm	3.85
cold_headwind	fail
crosswind	6.34
gusty_light	5.62
hot_thin	4.15
storm	8.54

d41ff8f3891a

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

381601803c83

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

519fc048c761

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

fe18ad9724dd

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

fee25dabbb6e

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

6cc487cfafab

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

7e950dded23f

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

generation 25

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)	4
pivot crosses (far parent)	7

mutation σ 0.084 of gene range
pivot σ 0.252 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 25 · 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 8.976, g1 8.976, g2 8.976, g3 8.911, g4 8.849, g5 8.804, g6 8.417, g7 8.417, g8 8.417, g9 8.417, g10 8.417, g11 8.417, g12 8.191, g13 8.191, g14 8.191, g15 8.182, g16 8.182, g17 8.182, g18 8.161, g19 8.161, g20 8.126, g21 8.126, g22 8.126, g23 8.126, g24 8.126 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 12 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 8.126 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.935, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 32.8942, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.5433, "plate_length_scale": 0.9996, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.0316, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.5167, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7191, "material": 0.0002} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.34, "crosswind": 4.98, "gusty_light": 4.5, "hot_thin": 3.69, "storm": 6.45}
fitness 8.156 Wh/km-agg, frame 84 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.9674, "arm_width_scale": 0.7557, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 32.9466, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.3742, "plate_length_scale": 0.997, "plate_width_scale": 0.9828, "deck_gap": 0.0303, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.763, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7376, "material": 0.0047} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.38, "crosswind": 4.99, "gusty_light": 4.51, "hot_thin": 3.69, "storm": 6.48}
fitness 8.161 Wh/km-agg, frame 84 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.9654, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 32.9374, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.5157, "plate_length_scale": 0.9986, "plate_width_scale": 0.9818, "deck_gap": 0.0304, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.5151, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7556, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.39, "crosswind": 4.99, "gusty_light": 4.51, "hot_thin": 3.68, "storm": 6.49}
fitness 8.163 Wh/km-agg, frame 84 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.9359, "arm_width_scale": 0.8098, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.6674, "rear_sweep_deg": 38.1955, "plate_length_scale": 0.9904, "plate_width_scale": 0.9998, "deck_gap": 0.0319, "battery_wedge_deg": 15.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1422} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.45, "cold_headwind": 6.37, "crosswind": 5.0, "gusty_light": 4.52, "hot_thin": 3.7, "storm": 6.48}
fitness 8.170 Wh/km-agg, frame 84 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.935, "arm_width_scale": 0.7744, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5701, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 32.8942, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.1275, "plate_length_scale": 0.9996, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.0316, "battery_wedge_deg": 15.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7191, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.45, "cold_headwind": 6.39, "crosswind": 5.0, "gusty_light": 4.52, "hot_thin": 3.69, "storm": 6.49}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g16 `8306b049` fitness 10.254 Wh/km-agg — was: Every printed-material probe so far died to arm tip deflection because it kept the carbon family's deep-waist tension-truss trick on a weaker material; this design abandons that trick entirely -- full-width, unwaisted, near-max-thickness PA12-CF arm plus thick decks -- to finally test whether a toughness-first, non-carbon frame is even viable, breaking the all-carbon monoculture that every elite s
- g16 `96878b1c` fitness 8.782 Wh/km-agg — was: Long-wheelbase and maxed-battery-wedge have each been tested in isolation (long arm alone underperformed at 9.08-9.14, wedge alone tops out the current elites at 8.18) but never combined -- this design stacks both frontal-area/disk-loading levers together with elite-floor arm bulk and only a modest plate-scale bump for the moderately swept tongues, staking out a genuinely unexplored corner of the 
- g17 `0e54d60f` fitness 10.724 Wh/km-agg — was: Test the opposite structural philosophy from every elite's tension-truss-at-minimum-mass assumption: stretch the wheelbase to 1.25 for genuinely lower disk loading, but this time pair it with a real full-width compression wall (width 1.1, waist 1.0, thickness 0.006) instead of a deep-waisted truss, on stock-adjacent sweeps and modest wedge so the long-arm-plus-bulk trade is isolated and its Wh/km-
- g17 `60382b2b` fitness 9.285 Wh/km-agg — was: Break the all-carbon monoculture properly this time: keep the elite's proven safe stock-adjacent geometry (33/37.5 sweep, 1.0/1.0 plates, 0.032 deck_gap) so only the material axis changes, but give PA12-CF real reinforcement -- moderate width and waist (0.95/0.85, not the carbon family's deep truss) and mid-range thickness (0.0065 m) plus plate_thickness_scale 0.95 -- enough margin above the print
- g17 `f9ea3427` fitness 8.792 Wh/km-agg — was: Abandon the maxed-battery-wedge frontal-area trick and the arm's own minimum-mass floor is kept, but this time strength comes from a genuinely full geodesic dome: both sweeps swung far past stock (42/50 vs 31.4/36) with plate scales grown to the rule-of-thumb 1.28/1.24 to keep tongue bolts anchored, and deck_gap opened to 0.038 m to starve the dominant rotor/deck-clearance failure mode outright in
- g18 `364861df` fitness 8.621 Wh/km-agg — was: The 25+12+14 rotor/deck-clearance rejects in the failure histogram have kept every elite's deck_gap pinned at 0.03-0.032 and wedge below 14.5, so this design spends real standoff mass to open deck_gap to 0.040 and buys enough vertical margin to combine the never-tried pairing of a stretched 1.15 wheelbase (lower disk loading) with the true 15deg wedge ceiling, testing whether clearance rather than
- g18 `44d60067` fitness 9.071 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite's arm sits at floor width with a deep waist (a thin truss) or, when tried otherwise, a full-bulk compression wall that failed outright -- this design tests the untried middle path of a wide-flange arm (width 1.1, only lightly waisted at 0.65, thickness still at floor) carrying moderate front/rear sweep triangulation with plate scales grown per the tongue-bolt rule of thumb, letting fla
- g18 `677ff932` fitness 9.350 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite is 100% carbon at floor arm mass with near-stock geometry — break the material monoculture with genuinely reinforced PET-CF (moderate width/waist/thickness matching the one successful PA12-CF template, thick decks well past the 0.8x printed-material floor) on the exact stock-adjacent geometry already proven valid, isolating whether a tougher material earns back its density penalty once
- g19 `930f0f43` fitness 9.544 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite is carbon at arm-mass floor; PLA+ has never been properly tested (its one random trial failed from arm overstress, not tip deflection), so this design breaks the monoculture with PLA+ on stock-adjacent, low-risk geometry but gives the arm real cross-section (width 1.0, light waist 0.85, thickness 0.007) and plates at 0.85x (above the 0.8x printed-material floor) to finally survive wher
- g19 `99aabf80` fitness 8.671 Wh/km-agg — was: Past probes changed only one lever at a time (wheelbase alone, sweep alone, wedge alone, gap alone) and each underperformed in isolation; this design stacks all four moderately at once: a modest 1.08 wheelbase stretch, real-but-restrained sweep triangulation (37/42) with matching 1.05 plate growth, generous 0.037 deck_gap to starve the dominant rotor/deck-clearance failure mode, and a still-strong
- g19 `cc389578` fitness 8.657 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite shares one trait: frontal area cut via maxed battery wedge on near-stock geometry, so this pivot abandons the wedge entirely (2deg) and instead braces the airframe with genuine sweep triangulation (40/45 vs stock 31.4/36) plus a stretched 1.15 wheelbase for lower disk loading, growing plates 1.10/1.10 to keep tongue bolts anchored and testing whether geometric bracing plus moment-arm r
- g20 `13a83031` fitness 9.313 Wh/km-agg — was: Frog mid-leap asymmetry: soften the failed 30.5/55 deg sweep split to 32/48 deg and grow plate_length/width_scale past the rule-of-thumb minimum (1.15/1.18 vs the ~1.12 needed) so the long swept rear tongue bolts stay anchored, reinvesting the abandoned battery-wedge budget into rear arm reinforcement instead.
- g20 `5e3f8986` fitness 10.562 Wh/km-agg — was: Abandon the all-carbon floor-mass tension-truss for frog-skin compliance: PETG with a wide, only lightly waisted arm and real thickness margin (well past the thickness/waist combo that killed every prior printed-material probe), on safe stock-adjacent geometry so only the material+cross-section axis changes.
- g21 `4c7dffe1` fitness 9.633 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite converges on a floor-mass, deep-waisted (0.55) tension-truss arm that has plateaued at ~8.1 while storm and cold_headwind remain the dominant costs -- webbed-foot logic replaces the narrow thick truss with a wide, barely-waisted, thin flange (width 1.15, waist 1.15, thickness 0.0045) that spreads load over area at similar mass, trading maxed battery wedge (14.5->8) and thin decks (0.72
- g21 `f4c0a73c` fitness 9.932 Wh/km-agg — was: Frog mid-leap asymmetric sweep (rear 55deg vs 36 stock) paired with the proven PA12-CF reinforced arm cross-section from a prior successful probe (width 0.95, waist 0.85, thickness 0.0065), but this time growing plate_length/width_scale to 1.42/1.32 -- well past the ~1.38 the tongue-bolt rule of thumb demands -- so the swept rear tongue bolts stay anchored where the prior attempt's tighter 1.28/1.
- g22 `5fd2ba8e` fitness 9.793 Wh/km-agg — was: Webbed-feet logic isolated as a single clean swap against the elite baseline: keep every proven elite lever (stock-adjacent sweep, unit plate scales, maxed battery wedge, floor-thin carbon) unchanged and only replace the deep-waisted narrow truss arm with a near-maximum-width, minimally-waisted membrane-thin flange that spreads load over area instead of concentrating it in a truss.
- g22 `c9158c37` fitness 9.984 Wh/km-agg — was: Frog mid-leap asymmetry done safely: short braced front arms at the sweep floor paired with long swept rear arms (+12deg over stock) on the already-validated webbed-foot carbon cross-section (width 1.1/waist 1.1/thickness 0.0045), growing plate scales well past the tongue-bolt rule of thumb (1.20/1.18) and reinvesting the abandoned wedge budget into deck_gap margin.
- g23 `79e8d5ee` fitness 10.643 Wh/km-agg — was: Every printed-material and asymmetric-sweep probe so far failed alone (arm deflection or under-grown plates); this pivot commits to frog mid-leap fully -- short braced front arms near stock, rear arms swept far past stock (54 deg) on a wide, lightly-waisted PLA+ arm for skin-like compliance instead of carbon stiffness, with plate scales grown well past the tongue-bolt rule of thumb and printed-mat
- g23 `c213bc81` fitness 9.785 Wh/km-agg — was: Prior webbed-foot swaps always kept the elite's maxed wedge and thin decks, so they never isolated whether area-spread load-bearing itself helps; this pivot abandons the wedge entirely, keeps stock-adjacent sweep, and reinvests the freed budget into a genuinely wide near-max-width, minimally-waisted membrane arm plus generous deck_gap and thicker decks, directly targeting the storm scenario's clea
- g24 `9d305333` fitness 8.770 Wh/km-agg — was: Frog-skin compliance at elite-safe wheelbase and stock-adjacent sweep: a lightly-waisted, moderate-width membrane arm (far from both the deep-waist truss and the failed near-max-bulk flange) paired with generous deck clearance and only a partial battery wedge, testing whether flex-absorbed loads during storm gusts earn back the frontal-area budget spent on clearance.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.56 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 4, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 27, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 15, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 21, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 34, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 2, "plates too thin for asa (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 3, "plates too thin for asa (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.35 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.46 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.57 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.36 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 15, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.17 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.83 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.50 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.94 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.39 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.38 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.81 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.79 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm overstressed (pla_plus)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.72 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.03 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.35 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.07 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.41 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "cold_headwind: battery pack cannot deliver demanded power": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.92 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.15 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.40 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 6, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.12 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.93 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.71 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.30 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.96 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.52 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 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 0.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.13 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1}

USER INSPIRATION -- the researcher asked you to draw on the ideas below when proposing designs. Translate them into the genome; do not ignore them:
# Frogs

Think of the shapes of frogs when coming up with new ideas.

- A frog at rest is a low, wide squat: mass carried close to the ground
  plane, limbs folded tight against the body. What is the quadcopter
  equivalent of tucking in — minimal deck gap, battery laid flat, arms
  hugging the plate?
- A frog mid-leap is the opposite: limbs at full asymmetric extension,
  rear legs long and powerful, front legs short and braced for landing.
  Try strongly asymmetric sweep — long swept-back rear arms, short
  forward arms.
- Webbed feet spread load over area with almost no mass. Where can a
  wide, thin structure replace a thick one?
- Frog skin is compliant; frogs absorb landings through flex, not
  stiffness. Consider the flexible filaments with generous arm width
  instead of maximum-stiffness carbon.


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 31a62df9 — Every elite has converged on the same floor-mass carbon truss with wheelbase pinned at 0.93-0.97 (never tested past 1.15) -- this pivot pushes arm_length_scale to 1.30, near the true ceiling, to cut disk loading for real and attack the dominant cold_headwind/hot_thin induced-power costs via geometry rather than the already-maxed battery-wedge trick, keeping the proven-safe floor arm cross-section flew at 8.893 Wh/km
candidate dcdebaa9 — Past printed-material probes always paired reinforcement with stock-ish wheelbase and failed on mass; this design instead stretches arm_length_scale to 1.10 to lower the bending moment and disk loading simultaneously, letting a moderately reinforced PA12-CF arm (width 0.90, waist 0.80, thickness 0.0055) survive storm gust loading through compliance while its mass premium is paid back by reduced ininvalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
candidate 050011cb — Every elite relies on a maxed battery_wedge to shrink frontal area; this pivot abandons that lever entirely for a true frog-at-rest flat-battery posture (wedge ~1 deg) and reinvests the freed budget into a much longer wheelbase (1.20) for lower disk loading, keeping the proven floor carbon truss and stock-adjacent sweep with extra deck_gap margin -- isolating whether power savings from lower disk flew at 8.578 Wh/km
candidate d5032c34 — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Frog-at-rest tuck: abandon the elite's tall maxed-wedge frontal-area trick for genuine compactness -- shorter wheelbase, near-floor deck_gap, and a near-flat battery -- while keeping the proven floor-mass carbon truss and stock-adjacent sweep unchanged so only the squat/low-profile axis is tested.
candidate 9023b73f — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — Frog mid-leap done cleanly: short braced front arm near the sweep floor paired with a rear arm swept 14deg past stock, plate scales grown well past the tongue-bolt rule of thumb (1.20/1.15) and deck_gap opened for rotor margin, while keeping the elite's floor-mass carbon cross-section fixed so the asymmetric-sweep effect is isolated from any material or cross-section confound.
candidate 28241cba — rejected pre-flight (rotor too close to deck/battery) — Webbed feet plus frog-skin compliance: replace the deep-waisted carbon truss with a wide, unwaisted PA12-CF membrane arm at proven-safe thickness margin, and abandon the maxed battery wedge entirely so any storm/gust robustness must come from area-spread flex rather than frontal-area geometry or material floor-mass.

96a6924c438d

8.126 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	6.34
crosswind	4.98
gusty_light	4.50
hot_thin	3.69
storm	6.45

56417773c65d

8.156 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	6.38
crosswind	4.99
gusty_light	4.51
hot_thin	3.69
storm	6.48

4d8f50d282cf

8.226 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.47
cold_headwind	6.44
crosswind	5.01
gusty_light	4.55
hot_thin	3.71
storm	6.54

9f988e1f964b

8.301 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.47
cold_headwind	6.54
crosswind	5.07
gusty_light	4.58
hot_thin	3.72
storm	6.61

050011cbbfab

8.578 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.48
cold_headwind	6.87
crosswind	5.22
gusty_light	4.70
hot_thin	3.74
storm	6.85

31a62df9ad14

8.893 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.58
cold_headwind	7.13
crosswind	5.45
gusty_light	4.86
hot_thin	3.83
storm	7.10

26133d96c55e

9.663 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.68
cold_headwind	7.93
crosswind	5.74
gusty_light	5.15
hot_thin	3.97
storm	7.73

5d1e320c8615

10.296 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.98
cold_headwind	8.38
crosswind	6.22
gusty_light	5.54
hot_thin	4.27
storm	8.24

0d93f164d14f

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.52 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

c624856bd036

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

0a50f7b619c9

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

d459c523fccf

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

dd61182f18a2

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)

4f0ec9f96192

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.49 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

150b64c529de

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.98 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

dcdebaa9fe02

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.62
cold_headwind	7.45
crosswind	5.64
gusty_light	5.00
hot_thin	3.87
storm	7.34

generation 24

inputs

⟳ pivot generation — bred with far parents after a plateau✦ claude designer · pivot round — “take a step back” ask · 1 design(s) injected, 5 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 0.087 of gene range
pivot σ 0.260 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 24 · 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 8.976, g1 8.976, g2 8.976, g3 8.911, g4 8.849, g5 8.804, g6 8.417, g7 8.417, g8 8.417, g9 8.417, g10 8.417, g11 8.417, g12 8.191, g13 8.191, g14 8.191, g15 8.182, g16 8.182, g17 8.182, g18 8.161, g19 8.161, g20 8.126, g21 8.126, g22 8.126, g23 8.126 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 11 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 8.126 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.935, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 32.8942, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.5433, "plate_length_scale": 0.9996, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.0316, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.5167, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7191, "material": 0.0002} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.34, "crosswind": 4.98, "gusty_light": 4.5, "hot_thin": 3.69, "storm": 6.45}
fitness 8.161 Wh/km-agg, frame 84 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.9654, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 32.9374, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.5157, "plate_length_scale": 0.9986, "plate_width_scale": 0.9818, "deck_gap": 0.0304, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.5151, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7556, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.39, "crosswind": 4.99, "gusty_light": 4.51, "hot_thin": 3.68, "storm": 6.49}
fitness 8.163 Wh/km-agg, frame 84 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.9359, "arm_width_scale": 0.8098, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.6674, "rear_sweep_deg": 38.1955, "plate_length_scale": 0.9904, "plate_width_scale": 0.9998, "deck_gap": 0.0319, "battery_wedge_deg": 15.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7, "material": 0.1422} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.45, "cold_headwind": 6.37, "crosswind": 5.0, "gusty_light": 4.52, "hot_thin": 3.7, "storm": 6.48}
fitness 8.170 Wh/km-agg, frame 84 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.935, "arm_width_scale": 0.7744, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5701, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 32.8942, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.1275, "plate_length_scale": 0.9996, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.0316, "battery_wedge_deg": 15.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7191, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.45, "cold_headwind": 6.39, "crosswind": 5.0, "gusty_light": 4.52, "hot_thin": 3.69, "storm": 6.49}
fitness 8.174 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.9506, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.0314, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.4925, "plate_length_scale": 1.0, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.0301, "battery_wedge_deg": 12.9638, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7199, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.4, "crosswind": 4.99, "gusty_light": 4.52, "hot_thin": 3.69, "storm": 6.5}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g15 `9780185b` fitness 8.321 Wh/km-agg — was: Retry the rear-sweep geodesic brace but grow plate_length_scale further (1.08 to 1.15) so the arm tongue bolts stay seated on the enlarged main plate, trimming battery wedge slightly to keep the frontal-area budget balanced.
- g16 `8306b049` fitness 10.254 Wh/km-agg — was: Every printed-material probe so far died to arm tip deflection because it kept the carbon family's deep-waist tension-truss trick on a weaker material; this design abandons that trick entirely -- full-width, unwaisted, near-max-thickness PA12-CF arm plus thick decks -- to finally test whether a toughness-first, non-carbon frame is even viable, breaking the all-carbon monoculture that every elite s
- g16 `96878b1c` fitness 8.782 Wh/km-agg — was: Long-wheelbase and maxed-battery-wedge have each been tested in isolation (long arm alone underperformed at 9.08-9.14, wedge alone tops out the current elites at 8.18) but never combined -- this design stacks both frontal-area/disk-loading levers together with elite-floor arm bulk and only a modest plate-scale bump for the moderately swept tongues, staking out a genuinely unexplored corner of the 
- g17 `0e54d60f` fitness 10.724 Wh/km-agg — was: Test the opposite structural philosophy from every elite's tension-truss-at-minimum-mass assumption: stretch the wheelbase to 1.25 for genuinely lower disk loading, but this time pair it with a real full-width compression wall (width 1.1, waist 1.0, thickness 0.006) instead of a deep-waisted truss, on stock-adjacent sweeps and modest wedge so the long-arm-plus-bulk trade is isolated and its Wh/km-
- g17 `60382b2b` fitness 9.285 Wh/km-agg — was: Break the all-carbon monoculture properly this time: keep the elite's proven safe stock-adjacent geometry (33/37.5 sweep, 1.0/1.0 plates, 0.032 deck_gap) so only the material axis changes, but give PA12-CF real reinforcement -- moderate width and waist (0.95/0.85, not the carbon family's deep truss) and mid-range thickness (0.0065 m) plus plate_thickness_scale 0.95 -- enough margin above the print
- g17 `f9ea3427` fitness 8.792 Wh/km-agg — was: Abandon the maxed-battery-wedge frontal-area trick and the arm's own minimum-mass floor is kept, but this time strength comes from a genuinely full geodesic dome: both sweeps swung far past stock (42/50 vs 31.4/36) with plate scales grown to the rule-of-thumb 1.28/1.24 to keep tongue bolts anchored, and deck_gap opened to 0.038 m to starve the dominant rotor/deck-clearance failure mode outright in
- g18 `364861df` fitness 8.621 Wh/km-agg — was: The 25+12+14 rotor/deck-clearance rejects in the failure histogram have kept every elite's deck_gap pinned at 0.03-0.032 and wedge below 14.5, so this design spends real standoff mass to open deck_gap to 0.040 and buys enough vertical margin to combine the never-tried pairing of a stretched 1.15 wheelbase (lower disk loading) with the true 15deg wedge ceiling, testing whether clearance rather than
- g18 `44d60067` fitness 9.071 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite's arm sits at floor width with a deep waist (a thin truss) or, when tried otherwise, a full-bulk compression wall that failed outright -- this design tests the untried middle path of a wide-flange arm (width 1.1, only lightly waisted at 0.65, thickness still at floor) carrying moderate front/rear sweep triangulation with plate scales grown per the tongue-bolt rule of thumb, letting fla
- g18 `677ff932` fitness 9.350 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite is 100% carbon at floor arm mass with near-stock geometry — break the material monoculture with genuinely reinforced PET-CF (moderate width/waist/thickness matching the one successful PA12-CF template, thick decks well past the 0.8x printed-material floor) on the exact stock-adjacent geometry already proven valid, isolating whether a tougher material earns back its density penalty once
- g19 `930f0f43` fitness 9.544 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite is carbon at arm-mass floor; PLA+ has never been properly tested (its one random trial failed from arm overstress, not tip deflection), so this design breaks the monoculture with PLA+ on stock-adjacent, low-risk geometry but gives the arm real cross-section (width 1.0, light waist 0.85, thickness 0.007) and plates at 0.85x (above the 0.8x printed-material floor) to finally survive wher
- g19 `99aabf80` fitness 8.671 Wh/km-agg — was: Past probes changed only one lever at a time (wheelbase alone, sweep alone, wedge alone, gap alone) and each underperformed in isolation; this design stacks all four moderately at once: a modest 1.08 wheelbase stretch, real-but-restrained sweep triangulation (37/42) with matching 1.05 plate growth, generous 0.037 deck_gap to starve the dominant rotor/deck-clearance failure mode, and a still-strong
- g19 `cc389578` fitness 8.657 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite shares one trait: frontal area cut via maxed battery wedge on near-stock geometry, so this pivot abandons the wedge entirely (2deg) and instead braces the airframe with genuine sweep triangulation (40/45 vs stock 31.4/36) plus a stretched 1.15 wheelbase for lower disk loading, growing plates 1.10/1.10 to keep tongue bolts anchored and testing whether geometric bracing plus moment-arm r
- g20 `13a83031` fitness 9.313 Wh/km-agg — was: Frog mid-leap asymmetry: soften the failed 30.5/55 deg sweep split to 32/48 deg and grow plate_length/width_scale past the rule-of-thumb minimum (1.15/1.18 vs the ~1.12 needed) so the long swept rear tongue bolts stay anchored, reinvesting the abandoned battery-wedge budget into rear arm reinforcement instead.
- g20 `5e3f8986` fitness 10.562 Wh/km-agg — was: Abandon the all-carbon floor-mass tension-truss for frog-skin compliance: PETG with a wide, only lightly waisted arm and real thickness margin (well past the thickness/waist combo that killed every prior printed-material probe), on safe stock-adjacent geometry so only the material+cross-section axis changes.
- g21 `4c7dffe1` fitness 9.633 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite converges on a floor-mass, deep-waisted (0.55) tension-truss arm that has plateaued at ~8.1 while storm and cold_headwind remain the dominant costs -- webbed-foot logic replaces the narrow thick truss with a wide, barely-waisted, thin flange (width 1.15, waist 1.15, thickness 0.0045) that spreads load over area at similar mass, trading maxed battery wedge (14.5->8) and thin decks (0.72
- g21 `f4c0a73c` fitness 9.932 Wh/km-agg — was: Frog mid-leap asymmetric sweep (rear 55deg vs 36 stock) paired with the proven PA12-CF reinforced arm cross-section from a prior successful probe (width 0.95, waist 0.85, thickness 0.0065), but this time growing plate_length/width_scale to 1.42/1.32 -- well past the ~1.38 the tongue-bolt rule of thumb demands -- so the swept rear tongue bolts stay anchored where the prior attempt's tighter 1.28/1.
- g22 `5fd2ba8e` fitness 9.793 Wh/km-agg — was: Webbed-feet logic isolated as a single clean swap against the elite baseline: keep every proven elite lever (stock-adjacent sweep, unit plate scales, maxed battery wedge, floor-thin carbon) unchanged and only replace the deep-waisted narrow truss arm with a near-maximum-width, minimally-waisted membrane-thin flange that spreads load over area instead of concentrating it in a truss.
- g22 `c9158c37` fitness 9.984 Wh/km-agg — was: Frog mid-leap asymmetry done safely: short braced front arms at the sweep floor paired with long swept rear arms (+12deg over stock) on the already-validated webbed-foot carbon cross-section (width 1.1/waist 1.1/thickness 0.0045), growing plate scales well past the tongue-bolt rule of thumb (1.20/1.18) and reinvesting the abandoned wedge budget into deck_gap margin.
- g23 `79e8d5ee` fitness 10.643 Wh/km-agg — was: Every printed-material and asymmetric-sweep probe so far failed alone (arm deflection or under-grown plates); this pivot commits to frog mid-leap fully -- short braced front arms near stock, rear arms swept far past stock (54 deg) on a wide, lightly-waisted PLA+ arm for skin-like compliance instead of carbon stiffness, with plate scales grown well past the tongue-bolt rule of thumb and printed-mat
- g23 `c213bc81` fitness 9.785 Wh/km-agg — was: Prior webbed-foot swaps always kept the elite's maxed wedge and thin decks, so they never isolated whether area-spread load-bearing itself helps; this pivot abandons the wedge entirely, keeps stock-adjacent sweep, and reinvests the freed budget into a genuinely wide near-max-width, minimally-waisted membrane arm plus generous deck_gap and thicker decks, directly targeting the storm scenario's clea

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.56 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 4, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 27, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 15, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 20, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 33, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 2, "plates too thin for asa (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 3, "plates too thin for asa (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.35 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.46 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.57 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.36 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 14, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.17 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.83 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.50 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.94 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.39 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.38 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.81 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.79 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm overstressed (pla_plus)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.72 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.03 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.35 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.07 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.41 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "cold_headwind: battery pack cannot deliver demanded power": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.92 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.15 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.40 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 6, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.12 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.93 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.71 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.30 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.96 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.52 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 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 0.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1}

USER INSPIRATION -- the researcher asked you to draw on the ideas below when proposing designs. Translate them into the genome; do not ignore them:
# Frogs

Think of the shapes of frogs when coming up with new ideas.

- A frog at rest is a low, wide squat: mass carried close to the ground
  plane, limbs folded tight against the body. What is the quadcopter
  equivalent of tucking in — minimal deck gap, battery laid flat, arms
  hugging the plate?
- A frog mid-leap is the opposite: limbs at full asymmetric extension,
  rear legs long and powerful, front legs short and braced for landing.
  Try strongly asymmetric sweep — long swept-back rear arms, short
  forward arms.
- Webbed feet spread load over area with almost no mass. Where can a
  wide, thin structure replace a thick one?
- Frog skin is compliant; frogs absorb landings through flex, not
  stiffness. Consider the flexible filaments with generous arm width
  instead of maximum-stiffness carbon.


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 9d305333 — Frog-skin compliance at elite-safe wheelbase and stock-adjacent sweep: a lightly-waisted, moderate-width membrane arm (far from both the deep-waist truss and the failed near-max-bulk flange) paired with generous deck clearance and only a partial battery wedge, testing whether flex-absorbed loads during storm gusts earn back the frontal-area budget spent on clearance.flew at 8.770 Wh/km
candidate 671d924b — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Every elite buys its frontal-area cut from a maxed 14.5-15deg battery wedge on a mid-length arm; this resting-frog pivot abandons that lever entirely for a true tuck -- flat battery (0.5deg wedge), shortened arm_length_scale (0.78, near floor) for a low wide squat, and a tightened deck_gap (0.026m, still above the 0.023m FC-stack floor) -- while keeping the proven elite-safe stock-sweep carbon tru
candidate 68dd2a92 — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — Prior mid-leap attempts always confounded asymmetric sweep with a material swap, a wedge change, or under/over-grown plates and all failed outright; this pivot isolates the frog-leap trait cleanly by holding the elite's proven carbon truss arm, maxed wedge, and elite deck_gap fixed while braced front arms sit near stock (30deg) and rear arms sweep far past stock (53deg) with plate_length/width_sca
candidate 7ee157de — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Webbed-foot arms have only ever been tested paired with a maxed wedge or with asymmetric sweep (both landed worse than elite); this pivot instead pairs a wide, barely-waisted, membrane-thin carbon arm (width 1.1, waist 1.1, thickness 0.0045) with the resting-frog tuck -- short arm_length_scale (0.80) and near-flat battery wedge (1.0deg) -- on stock sweep and unit plates, testing whether area-sprea
candidate 1d0f358f — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Tucked-frog mass cut: shrink wheelbase into the untested safe band between the failed 0.78 (rotor overlap) and the elite floor of ~0.935, keeping every other lever at its proven-safe elite value so only the arm-length/disk-loading tradeoff is isolated.
candidate 33322c39 — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Frog mid-leap done as a clean single-axis test: short braced front sweep near floor and rear swept +12deg past stock with plate scales grown exactly per the tongue-bolt rule of thumb, but this time keeping the elite's maxed battery wedge and floor-mass carbon arm intact instead of abandoning them, isolating whether asymmetric sweep bracing adds on top of the frontal-area trick rather than trading

96a6924c438d

8.126 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	6.34
crosswind	4.98
gusty_light	4.50
hot_thin	3.69
storm	6.45

56417773c65d

8.156 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	6.38
crosswind	4.99
gusty_light	4.51
hot_thin	3.69
storm	6.48

ee1b99647533

8.161 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	6.39
crosswind	4.99
gusty_light	4.51
hot_thin	3.68
storm	6.49

d54a3aa990a2

8.171 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.45
cold_headwind	6.39
crosswind	4.99
gusty_light	4.52
hot_thin	3.70
storm	6.49

88ecfdffbc69

8.192 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.45
cold_headwind	6.40
crosswind	5.02
gusty_light	4.54
hot_thin	3.70
storm	6.51

662870aeed7a

8.392 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.52
cold_headwind	6.57
crosswind	5.14
gusty_light	4.64
hot_thin	3.77
storm	6.68

9d3053339b6d

8.770 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.54
cold_headwind	7.05
crosswind	5.29
gusty_light	4.78
hot_thin	3.80
storm	7.00

04c89a004a87

9.660 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.72
cold_headwind	7.88
crosswind	5.78
gusty_light	5.18
hot_thin	4.01
storm	7.73

91186a7b595d

10.189 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.95
cold_headwind	8.29
crosswind	6.14
gusty_light	5.48
hot_thin	4.23
storm	8.15

7920f2bd01ce

10.333 wh/km agg

calm_warm	4.01
cold_headwind	8.40
crosswind	6.25
gusty_light	5.57
hot_thin	4.30
storm	8.29

197fe8db83c1

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

c4bd4348a001

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.52 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

8fd38b0279f3

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

775a74b0278c

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

86fee5cc8956

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.94 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

1b5817264395

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.13 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

generation 23

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)	5
pivot crosses (far parent)	7

mutation σ 0.089 of gene range
pivot σ 0.268 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 23 · 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 8.976, g1 8.976, g2 8.976, g3 8.911, g4 8.849, g5 8.804, g6 8.417, g7 8.417, g8 8.417, g9 8.417, g10 8.417, g11 8.417, g12 8.191, g13 8.191, g14 8.191, g15 8.182, g16 8.182, g17 8.182, g18 8.161, g19 8.161, g20 8.126, g21 8.126, g22 8.126 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 10 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 8.126 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.935, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 32.8942, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.5433, "plate_length_scale": 0.9996, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.0316, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.5167, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7191, "material": 0.0002} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.34, "crosswind": 4.98, "gusty_light": 4.5, "hot_thin": 3.69, "storm": 6.45}
fitness 8.161 Wh/km-agg, frame 84 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.9654, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 32.9374, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.5157, "plate_length_scale": 0.9986, "plate_width_scale": 0.9818, "deck_gap": 0.0304, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.5151, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7556, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.39, "crosswind": 4.99, "gusty_light": 4.51, "hot_thin": 3.68, "storm": 6.49}
fitness 8.170 Wh/km-agg, frame 84 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.935, "arm_width_scale": 0.7744, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5701, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 32.8942, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.1275, "plate_length_scale": 0.9996, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.0316, "battery_wedge_deg": 15.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7191, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.45, "cold_headwind": 6.39, "crosswind": 5.0, "gusty_light": 4.52, "hot_thin": 3.69, "storm": 6.49}
fitness 8.174 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.9506, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.0314, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.4925, "plate_length_scale": 1.0, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.0301, "battery_wedge_deg": 12.9638, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7199, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.4, "crosswind": 4.99, "gusty_light": 4.52, "hot_thin": 3.69, "storm": 6.5}
fitness 8.182 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.95, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.5, "plate_length_scale": 1.0, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.03, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.5, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.72, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.41, "crosswind": 5.0, "gusty_light": 4.53, "hot_thin": 3.69, "storm": 6.51}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g15 `168c3f15` fitness 8.182 Wh/km-agg — was: Retest the ephemeralized-deck floor below 0.75x but with plate_length/width restored to the champion's safe 1.0x, isolating the thickness axis instead of conflating it with a shrunk plate scale that crushed the FC-stack web.
- g15 `722bb4a8` fitness 8.364 Wh/km-agg — was: Geodesic-braced long-wheelbase with the wedge trick abandoned entirely: combine a moderate wheelbase stretch (lower disk loading) with genuine sweep triangulation on both arms, reinvesting the freed frontal-area budget into deck_gap margin, to test whether pure geometric bracing can beat the wedge-dependent elite cluster -- a combination two prior probes tried separately but never together.
- g15 `9780185b` fitness 8.321 Wh/km-agg — was: Retry the rear-sweep geodesic brace but grow plate_length_scale further (1.08 to 1.15) so the arm tongue bolts stay seated on the enlarged main plate, trimming battery wedge slightly to keep the frontal-area budget balanced.
- g16 `8306b049` fitness 10.254 Wh/km-agg — was: Every printed-material probe so far died to arm tip deflection because it kept the carbon family's deep-waist tension-truss trick on a weaker material; this design abandons that trick entirely -- full-width, unwaisted, near-max-thickness PA12-CF arm plus thick decks -- to finally test whether a toughness-first, non-carbon frame is even viable, breaking the all-carbon monoculture that every elite s
- g16 `96878b1c` fitness 8.782 Wh/km-agg — was: Long-wheelbase and maxed-battery-wedge have each been tested in isolation (long arm alone underperformed at 9.08-9.14, wedge alone tops out the current elites at 8.18) but never combined -- this design stacks both frontal-area/disk-loading levers together with elite-floor arm bulk and only a modest plate-scale bump for the moderately swept tongues, staking out a genuinely unexplored corner of the 
- g17 `0e54d60f` fitness 10.724 Wh/km-agg — was: Test the opposite structural philosophy from every elite's tension-truss-at-minimum-mass assumption: stretch the wheelbase to 1.25 for genuinely lower disk loading, but this time pair it with a real full-width compression wall (width 1.1, waist 1.0, thickness 0.006) instead of a deep-waisted truss, on stock-adjacent sweeps and modest wedge so the long-arm-plus-bulk trade is isolated and its Wh/km-
- g17 `60382b2b` fitness 9.285 Wh/km-agg — was: Break the all-carbon monoculture properly this time: keep the elite's proven safe stock-adjacent geometry (33/37.5 sweep, 1.0/1.0 plates, 0.032 deck_gap) so only the material axis changes, but give PA12-CF real reinforcement -- moderate width and waist (0.95/0.85, not the carbon family's deep truss) and mid-range thickness (0.0065 m) plus plate_thickness_scale 0.95 -- enough margin above the print
- g17 `f9ea3427` fitness 8.792 Wh/km-agg — was: Abandon the maxed-battery-wedge frontal-area trick and the arm's own minimum-mass floor is kept, but this time strength comes from a genuinely full geodesic dome: both sweeps swung far past stock (42/50 vs 31.4/36) with plate scales grown to the rule-of-thumb 1.28/1.24 to keep tongue bolts anchored, and deck_gap opened to 0.038 m to starve the dominant rotor/deck-clearance failure mode outright in
- g18 `364861df` fitness 8.621 Wh/km-agg — was: The 25+12+14 rotor/deck-clearance rejects in the failure histogram have kept every elite's deck_gap pinned at 0.03-0.032 and wedge below 14.5, so this design spends real standoff mass to open deck_gap to 0.040 and buys enough vertical margin to combine the never-tried pairing of a stretched 1.15 wheelbase (lower disk loading) with the true 15deg wedge ceiling, testing whether clearance rather than
- g18 `44d60067` fitness 9.071 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite's arm sits at floor width with a deep waist (a thin truss) or, when tried otherwise, a full-bulk compression wall that failed outright -- this design tests the untried middle path of a wide-flange arm (width 1.1, only lightly waisted at 0.65, thickness still at floor) carrying moderate front/rear sweep triangulation with plate scales grown per the tongue-bolt rule of thumb, letting fla
- g18 `677ff932` fitness 9.350 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite is 100% carbon at floor arm mass with near-stock geometry — break the material monoculture with genuinely reinforced PET-CF (moderate width/waist/thickness matching the one successful PA12-CF template, thick decks well past the 0.8x printed-material floor) on the exact stock-adjacent geometry already proven valid, isolating whether a tougher material earns back its density penalty once
- g19 `930f0f43` fitness 9.544 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite is carbon at arm-mass floor; PLA+ has never been properly tested (its one random trial failed from arm overstress, not tip deflection), so this design breaks the monoculture with PLA+ on stock-adjacent, low-risk geometry but gives the arm real cross-section (width 1.0, light waist 0.85, thickness 0.007) and plates at 0.85x (above the 0.8x printed-material floor) to finally survive wher
- g19 `99aabf80` fitness 8.671 Wh/km-agg — was: Past probes changed only one lever at a time (wheelbase alone, sweep alone, wedge alone, gap alone) and each underperformed in isolation; this design stacks all four moderately at once: a modest 1.08 wheelbase stretch, real-but-restrained sweep triangulation (37/42) with matching 1.05 plate growth, generous 0.037 deck_gap to starve the dominant rotor/deck-clearance failure mode, and a still-strong
- g19 `cc389578` fitness 8.657 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite shares one trait: frontal area cut via maxed battery wedge on near-stock geometry, so this pivot abandons the wedge entirely (2deg) and instead braces the airframe with genuine sweep triangulation (40/45 vs stock 31.4/36) plus a stretched 1.15 wheelbase for lower disk loading, growing plates 1.10/1.10 to keep tongue bolts anchored and testing whether geometric bracing plus moment-arm r
- g20 `13a83031` fitness 9.313 Wh/km-agg — was: Frog mid-leap asymmetry: soften the failed 30.5/55 deg sweep split to 32/48 deg and grow plate_length/width_scale past the rule-of-thumb minimum (1.15/1.18 vs the ~1.12 needed) so the long swept rear tongue bolts stay anchored, reinvesting the abandoned battery-wedge budget into rear arm reinforcement instead.
- g20 `5e3f8986` fitness 10.562 Wh/km-agg — was: Abandon the all-carbon floor-mass tension-truss for frog-skin compliance: PETG with a wide, only lightly waisted arm and real thickness margin (well past the thickness/waist combo that killed every prior printed-material probe), on safe stock-adjacent geometry so only the material+cross-section axis changes.
- g21 `4c7dffe1` fitness 9.633 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite converges on a floor-mass, deep-waisted (0.55) tension-truss arm that has plateaued at ~8.1 while storm and cold_headwind remain the dominant costs -- webbed-foot logic replaces the narrow thick truss with a wide, barely-waisted, thin flange (width 1.15, waist 1.15, thickness 0.0045) that spreads load over area at similar mass, trading maxed battery wedge (14.5->8) and thin decks (0.72
- g21 `f4c0a73c` fitness 9.932 Wh/km-agg — was: Frog mid-leap asymmetric sweep (rear 55deg vs 36 stock) paired with the proven PA12-CF reinforced arm cross-section from a prior successful probe (width 0.95, waist 0.85, thickness 0.0065), but this time growing plate_length/width_scale to 1.42/1.32 -- well past the ~1.38 the tongue-bolt rule of thumb demands -- so the swept rear tongue bolts stay anchored where the prior attempt's tighter 1.28/1.
- g22 `5fd2ba8e` fitness 9.793 Wh/km-agg — was: Webbed-feet logic isolated as a single clean swap against the elite baseline: keep every proven elite lever (stock-adjacent sweep, unit plate scales, maxed battery wedge, floor-thin carbon) unchanged and only replace the deep-waisted narrow truss arm with a near-maximum-width, minimally-waisted membrane-thin flange that spreads load over area instead of concentrating it in a truss.
- g22 `c9158c37` fitness 9.984 Wh/km-agg — was: Frog mid-leap asymmetry done safely: short braced front arms at the sweep floor paired with long swept rear arms (+12deg over stock) on the already-validated webbed-foot carbon cross-section (width 1.1/waist 1.1/thickness 0.0045), growing plate scales well past the tongue-bolt rule of thumb (1.20/1.18) and reinvesting the abandoned wedge budget into deck_gap margin.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.56 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 4, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 27, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 15, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 20, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 31, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 2, "plates too thin for asa (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 3, "plates too thin for asa (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.35 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.46 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.57 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.36 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 12, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.17 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.83 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.50 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.94 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.39 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.38 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.81 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.79 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm overstressed (pla_plus)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.72 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.03 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.35 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.07 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.41 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "cold_headwind: battery pack cannot deliver demanded power": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.92 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.15 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.40 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.12 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.93 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.71 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.30 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.96 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.52 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.15 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1}

USER INSPIRATION -- the researcher asked you to draw on the ideas below when proposing designs. Translate them into the genome; do not ignore them:
# Frogs

Think of the shapes of frogs when coming up with new ideas.

- A frog at rest is a low, wide squat: mass carried close to the ground
  plane, limbs folded tight against the body. What is the quadcopter
  equivalent of tucking in — minimal deck gap, battery laid flat, arms
  hugging the plate?
- A frog mid-leap is the opposite: limbs at full asymmetric extension,
  rear legs long and powerful, front legs short and braced for landing.
  Try strongly asymmetric sweep — long swept-back rear arms, short
  forward arms.
- Webbed feet spread load over area with almost no mass. Where can a
  wide, thin structure replace a thick one?
- Frog skin is compliant; frogs absorb landings through flex, not
  stiffness. Consider the flexible filaments with generous arm width
  instead of maximum-stiffness carbon.


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 79e8d5ee — Every printed-material and asymmetric-sweep probe so far failed alone (arm deflection or under-grown plates); this pivot commits to frog mid-leap fully -- short braced front arms near stock, rear arms swept far past stock (54 deg) on a wide, lightly-waisted PLA+ arm for skin-like compliance instead of carbon stiffness, with plate scales grown well past the tongue-bolt rule of thumb and printed-matflew at 10.643 Wh/km
candidate c213bc81 — Prior webbed-foot swaps always kept the elite's maxed wedge and thin decks, so they never isolated whether area-spread load-bearing itself helps; this pivot abandons the wedge entirely, keeps stock-adjacent sweep, and reinvests the freed budget into a genuinely wide near-max-width, minimally-waisted membrane arm plus generous deck_gap and thicker decks, directly targeting the storm scenario's cleaflew at 9.785 Wh/km
candidate a4be9cf2 — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — The entire elite cluster is built on one trait -- floor-mass deep-waisted truss arms plus a maxed battery wedge for frontal area -- and storm/cold_headwind costs have barely moved in 10 gens, so this pivot abandons the wedge trick entirely for genuine frog-at-rest tucking: near-min wheelbase, flat battery (no wedge), and deck_gap trimmed to just above the FC-stack floor, testing whether a low tuck
candidate 6e866596 — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Tucked-frog squat that abandons the maxed-wedge frontal-area trick for geometric compactness (flat battery, minimal deck gap, short wheelbase), fixing the prior 0.78 arm_length_scale that caused rotor-disk overlap by growing it to 0.90 -- still shorter than every current elite's 0.935-0.965 -- while leaving stock-adjacent sweep and the proven floor-mass carbon truss untouched so only the compactne

96a6924c438d

8.126 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	6.34
crosswind	4.98
gusty_light	4.50
hot_thin	3.69
storm	6.45

ee1b99647533

8.161 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	6.39
crosswind	4.99
gusty_light	4.51
hot_thin	3.68
storm	6.49

caaa939ed547

8.163 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.45
cold_headwind	6.37
crosswind	5.00
gusty_light	4.52
hot_thin	3.70
storm	6.48

53ae8a5f98fa

8.200 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.46
cold_headwind	6.42
crosswind	5.01
gusty_light	4.54
hot_thin	3.70
storm	6.52

e18b7cef3625

8.247 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.46
cold_headwind	6.47
crosswind	5.04
gusty_light	4.56
hot_thin	3.71
storm	6.56

1812d2ce29b4

8.247 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.46
cold_headwind	6.47
crosswind	5.05
gusty_light	4.56
hot_thin	3.71
storm	6.56

c213bc81aab2

9.785 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.74
cold_headwind	8.00
crosswind	5.85
gusty_light	5.24
hot_thin	4.03
storm	7.84

15e80ba12591

10.184 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.95
cold_headwind	8.29
crosswind	6.14
gusty_light	5.48
hot_thin	4.23
storm	8.16

79e8d5ee4702

10.643 wh/km agg

calm_warm	4.08
cold_headwind	8.65
crosswind	6.54
gusty_light	5.74
hot_thin	4.35
storm	8.53

b2db457835c5

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

61667aa405b2

∞ wh/km agg

cold_headwind: battery pack cannot deliver demanded power

calm_warm	4.25
cold_headwind	fail
crosswind	6.88
gusty_light	6.07
hot_thin	4.55
storm	9.14

bff8162f5f02

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)

1c95136afb21

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

dd5e2dd65593

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

5637dccd8806

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

cb11dd7b0714

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

generation 22

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)	4
pivot crosses (far parent)	7
random immigrants	1

mutation σ 0.092 of gene range
pivot σ 0.276 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 8.976, g1 8.976, g2 8.976, g3 8.911, g4 8.849, g5 8.804, g6 8.417, g7 8.417, g8 8.417, g9 8.417, g10 8.417, g11 8.417, g12 8.191, g13 8.191, g14 8.191, g15 8.182, g16 8.182, g17 8.182, g18 8.161, g19 8.161, g20 8.126, g21 8.126 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 9 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 8.126 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.935, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 32.8942, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.5433, "plate_length_scale": 0.9996, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.0316, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.5167, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7191, "material": 0.0002} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.34, "crosswind": 4.98, "gusty_light": 4.5, "hot_thin": 3.69, "storm": 6.45}
fitness 8.161 Wh/km-agg, frame 84 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.9654, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 32.9374, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.5157, "plate_length_scale": 0.9986, "plate_width_scale": 0.9818, "deck_gap": 0.0304, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.5151, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7556, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.39, "crosswind": 4.99, "gusty_light": 4.51, "hot_thin": 3.68, "storm": 6.49}
fitness 8.182 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.95, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.5, "plate_length_scale": 1.0, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.03, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.5, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.72, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.41, "crosswind": 5.0, "gusty_light": 4.53, "hot_thin": 3.69, "storm": 6.51}
fitness 8.185 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.95, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.5, "plate_length_scale": 1.0, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.03, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.1753, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.72, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.45, "cold_headwind": 6.41, "crosswind": 5.0, "gusty_light": 4.53, "hot_thin": 3.69, "storm": 6.51}
fitness 8.191 Wh/km-agg, frame 84 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.95, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.5, "plate_length_scale": 1.0, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.03, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.5, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.75, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.45, "cold_headwind": 6.41, "crosswind": 5.01, "gusty_light": 4.53, "hot_thin": 3.69, "storm": 6.51}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g12 `3958e3b9` fitness 8.485 Wh/km-agg — was: Prior isolated long-wheelbase tests (arm_length_scale 1.28-1.30) underperformed but were never paired with thin decks, so this design stretches to a moderate 1.15 with a rear-sweep brace for tip stability and drops plate_thickness_scale to 0.75, combining the moment-arm restructuring and ephemeral-deck axes that earlier probes tested only separately, while keeping the proven wedge trick intact to 
- g12 `3ae2747c` fitness 8.191 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family has held plate_thickness_scale in a tight 1.19-1.25 cluster despite never being pushed downward toward the 0.7 floor -- this pivot isolates that untested mass tax by dropping deck plates to 0.75x while keeping the proven near-stock geometry and maxed battery wedge unchanged, testing whether carbon's stiffness-to-weight ratio makes the elite's thick decks an unearned tax rather tha
- g15 `168c3f15` fitness 8.182 Wh/km-agg — was: Retest the ephemeralized-deck floor below 0.75x but with plate_length/width restored to the champion's safe 1.0x, isolating the thickness axis instead of conflating it with a shrunk plate scale that crushed the FC-stack web.
- g15 `722bb4a8` fitness 8.364 Wh/km-agg — was: Geodesic-braced long-wheelbase with the wedge trick abandoned entirely: combine a moderate wheelbase stretch (lower disk loading) with genuine sweep triangulation on both arms, reinvesting the freed frontal-area budget into deck_gap margin, to test whether pure geometric bracing can beat the wedge-dependent elite cluster -- a combination two prior probes tried separately but never together.
- g15 `9780185b` fitness 8.321 Wh/km-agg — was: Retry the rear-sweep geodesic brace but grow plate_length_scale further (1.08 to 1.15) so the arm tongue bolts stay seated on the enlarged main plate, trimming battery wedge slightly to keep the frontal-area budget balanced.
- g16 `8306b049` fitness 10.254 Wh/km-agg — was: Every printed-material probe so far died to arm tip deflection because it kept the carbon family's deep-waist tension-truss trick on a weaker material; this design abandons that trick entirely -- full-width, unwaisted, near-max-thickness PA12-CF arm plus thick decks -- to finally test whether a toughness-first, non-carbon frame is even viable, breaking the all-carbon monoculture that every elite s
- g16 `96878b1c` fitness 8.782 Wh/km-agg — was: Long-wheelbase and maxed-battery-wedge have each been tested in isolation (long arm alone underperformed at 9.08-9.14, wedge alone tops out the current elites at 8.18) but never combined -- this design stacks both frontal-area/disk-loading levers together with elite-floor arm bulk and only a modest plate-scale bump for the moderately swept tongues, staking out a genuinely unexplored corner of the 
- g17 `0e54d60f` fitness 10.724 Wh/km-agg — was: Test the opposite structural philosophy from every elite's tension-truss-at-minimum-mass assumption: stretch the wheelbase to 1.25 for genuinely lower disk loading, but this time pair it with a real full-width compression wall (width 1.1, waist 1.0, thickness 0.006) instead of a deep-waisted truss, on stock-adjacent sweeps and modest wedge so the long-arm-plus-bulk trade is isolated and its Wh/km-
- g17 `60382b2b` fitness 9.285 Wh/km-agg — was: Break the all-carbon monoculture properly this time: keep the elite's proven safe stock-adjacent geometry (33/37.5 sweep, 1.0/1.0 plates, 0.032 deck_gap) so only the material axis changes, but give PA12-CF real reinforcement -- moderate width and waist (0.95/0.85, not the carbon family's deep truss) and mid-range thickness (0.0065 m) plus plate_thickness_scale 0.95 -- enough margin above the print
- g17 `f9ea3427` fitness 8.792 Wh/km-agg — was: Abandon the maxed-battery-wedge frontal-area trick and the arm's own minimum-mass floor is kept, but this time strength comes from a genuinely full geodesic dome: both sweeps swung far past stock (42/50 vs 31.4/36) with plate scales grown to the rule-of-thumb 1.28/1.24 to keep tongue bolts anchored, and deck_gap opened to 0.038 m to starve the dominant rotor/deck-clearance failure mode outright in
- g18 `364861df` fitness 8.621 Wh/km-agg — was: The 25+12+14 rotor/deck-clearance rejects in the failure histogram have kept every elite's deck_gap pinned at 0.03-0.032 and wedge below 14.5, so this design spends real standoff mass to open deck_gap to 0.040 and buys enough vertical margin to combine the never-tried pairing of a stretched 1.15 wheelbase (lower disk loading) with the true 15deg wedge ceiling, testing whether clearance rather than
- g18 `44d60067` fitness 9.071 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite's arm sits at floor width with a deep waist (a thin truss) or, when tried otherwise, a full-bulk compression wall that failed outright -- this design tests the untried middle path of a wide-flange arm (width 1.1, only lightly waisted at 0.65, thickness still at floor) carrying moderate front/rear sweep triangulation with plate scales grown per the tongue-bolt rule of thumb, letting fla
- g18 `677ff932` fitness 9.350 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite is 100% carbon at floor arm mass with near-stock geometry — break the material monoculture with genuinely reinforced PET-CF (moderate width/waist/thickness matching the one successful PA12-CF template, thick decks well past the 0.8x printed-material floor) on the exact stock-adjacent geometry already proven valid, isolating whether a tougher material earns back its density penalty once
- g19 `930f0f43` fitness 9.544 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite is carbon at arm-mass floor; PLA+ has never been properly tested (its one random trial failed from arm overstress, not tip deflection), so this design breaks the monoculture with PLA+ on stock-adjacent, low-risk geometry but gives the arm real cross-section (width 1.0, light waist 0.85, thickness 0.007) and plates at 0.85x (above the 0.8x printed-material floor) to finally survive wher
- g19 `99aabf80` fitness 8.671 Wh/km-agg — was: Past probes changed only one lever at a time (wheelbase alone, sweep alone, wedge alone, gap alone) and each underperformed in isolation; this design stacks all four moderately at once: a modest 1.08 wheelbase stretch, real-but-restrained sweep triangulation (37/42) with matching 1.05 plate growth, generous 0.037 deck_gap to starve the dominant rotor/deck-clearance failure mode, and a still-strong
- g19 `cc389578` fitness 8.657 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite shares one trait: frontal area cut via maxed battery wedge on near-stock geometry, so this pivot abandons the wedge entirely (2deg) and instead braces the airframe with genuine sweep triangulation (40/45 vs stock 31.4/36) plus a stretched 1.15 wheelbase for lower disk loading, growing plates 1.10/1.10 to keep tongue bolts anchored and testing whether geometric bracing plus moment-arm r
- g20 `13a83031` fitness 9.313 Wh/km-agg — was: Frog mid-leap asymmetry: soften the failed 30.5/55 deg sweep split to 32/48 deg and grow plate_length/width_scale past the rule-of-thumb minimum (1.15/1.18 vs the ~1.12 needed) so the long swept rear tongue bolts stay anchored, reinvesting the abandoned battery-wedge budget into rear arm reinforcement instead.
- g20 `5e3f8986` fitness 10.562 Wh/km-agg — was: Abandon the all-carbon floor-mass tension-truss for frog-skin compliance: PETG with a wide, only lightly waisted arm and real thickness margin (well past the thickness/waist combo that killed every prior printed-material probe), on safe stock-adjacent geometry so only the material+cross-section axis changes.
- g21 `4c7dffe1` fitness 9.633 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite converges on a floor-mass, deep-waisted (0.55) tension-truss arm that has plateaued at ~8.1 while storm and cold_headwind remain the dominant costs -- webbed-foot logic replaces the narrow thick truss with a wide, barely-waisted, thin flange (width 1.15, waist 1.15, thickness 0.0045) that spreads load over area at similar mass, trading maxed battery wedge (14.5->8) and thin decks (0.72
- g21 `f4c0a73c` fitness 9.932 Wh/km-agg — was: Frog mid-leap asymmetric sweep (rear 55deg vs 36 stock) paired with the proven PA12-CF reinforced arm cross-section from a prior successful probe (width 0.95, waist 0.85, thickness 0.0065), but this time growing plate_length/width_scale to 1.42/1.32 -- well past the ~1.38 the tongue-bolt rule of thumb demands -- so the swept rear tongue bolts stay anchored where the prior attempt's tighter 1.28/1.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.56 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 4, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 27, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 15, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 18, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 28, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 2, "plates too thin for asa (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 3, "plates too thin for asa (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.35 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.46 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.57 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.36 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 10, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.17 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.83 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.50 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.94 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.39 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.38 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.81 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.79 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm overstressed (pla_plus)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.72 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.03 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.35 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.07 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.41 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "cold_headwind: battery pack cannot deliver demanded power": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.92 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.15 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.40 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.12 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.93 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.71 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.30 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.96 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.52 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1}

USER INSPIRATION -- the researcher asked you to draw on the ideas below when proposing designs. Translate them into the genome; do not ignore them:
# Frogs

Think of the shapes of frogs when coming up with new ideas.

- A frog at rest is a low, wide squat: mass carried close to the ground
  plane, limbs folded tight against the body. What is the quadcopter
  equivalent of tucking in — minimal deck gap, battery laid flat, arms
  hugging the plate?
- A frog mid-leap is the opposite: limbs at full asymmetric extension,
  rear legs long and powerful, front legs short and braced for landing.
  Try strongly asymmetric sweep — long swept-back rear arms, short
  forward arms.
- Webbed feet spread load over area with almost no mass. Where can a
  wide, thin structure replace a thick one?
- Frog skin is compliant; frogs absorb landings through flex, not
  stiffness. Consider the flexible filaments with generous arm width
  instead of maximum-stiffness carbon.


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 5fd2ba8e — Webbed-feet logic isolated as a single clean swap against the elite baseline: keep every proven elite lever (stock-adjacent sweep, unit plate scales, maxed battery wedge, floor-thin carbon) unchanged and only replace the deep-waisted narrow truss arm with a near-maximum-width, minimally-waisted membrane-thin flange that spreads load over area instead of concentrating it in a truss.flew at 9.793 Wh/km
candidate c9158c37 — Frog mid-leap asymmetry done safely: short braced front arms at the sweep floor paired with long swept rear arms (+12deg over stock) on the already-validated webbed-foot carbon cross-section (width 1.1/waist 1.1/thickness 0.0045), growing plate scales well past the tongue-bolt rule of thumb (1.20/1.18) and reinvesting the abandoned wedge budget into deck_gap margin.flew at 9.984 Wh/km
candidate ddc60283 — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Every elite shares a minimum-mass carbon tension-truss arm plus a maxed battery wedge to cut frontal area -- this proposal abandons both at once for a frog-at-rest tuck: minimal deck_gap, a nearly flat battery, and a wide, barely-waisted arm on a compliant PLA+ that absorbs storm/gust loads through flex rather than stiffness.
candidate 826db61c — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — Frog mid-leap asymmetry taken to its structural limit: a short, near-stock braced front leg paired with a rear sweep pushed to the plate-scale ceiling (56deg, plate scales grown to 1.28/1.22 per the tongue-bolt rule) while keeping the proven floor-mass carbon truss and trading the maxed battery wedge for reinvested rear-arm bracing budget, isolating pure asymmetric-sweep bracing from every prior p
candidate ce769011 — rejected pre-flight (rotor too close to deck/battery) — Frog-at-rest tuck: abandon the maxed-battery-wedge frontal-area trick and thin-deck floor entirely, using the already-validated PLA+ reinforced arm cross-section (width 1.05/waist 0.85/thickness 0.0065) with a flat battery and tight deck_gap, keeping arm_length at a proven-safe 0.95 and stock-adjacent sweep so no tip-clearance or bolt-miss risk is introduced.

96a6924c438d

8.126 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	6.34
crosswind	4.98
gusty_light	4.50
hot_thin	3.69
storm	6.45

ee1b99647533

8.161 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	6.39
crosswind	4.99
gusty_light	4.51
hot_thin	3.68
storm	6.49

3c71771ab1d2

8.170 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.45
cold_headwind	6.39
crosswind	5.00
gusty_light	4.52
hot_thin	3.69
storm	6.49

8c331ea6bfb6

8.174 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	6.40
crosswind	4.99
gusty_light	4.52
hot_thin	3.69
storm	6.50

5fd2ba8e9bf4

9.793 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.73
cold_headwind	8.02
crosswind	5.85
gusty_light	5.24
hot_thin	4.01
storm	7.84

c9158c37cd53

9.984 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.80
cold_headwind	8.18
crosswind	5.99
gusty_light	5.33
hot_thin	4.08
storm	7.97

076d7f71be86

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

18be8c932f2c

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

632aca7370d2

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

a5fc89b84f71

∞ wh/km agg

cold_headwind: battery pack cannot deliver demanded power

calm_warm	4.26
cold_headwind	fail
crosswind	6.86
gusty_light	6.07
hot_thin	4.56
storm	9.14

dfbe80a0ea7b

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

ee81c7796870

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.15 mm, stock 1.47 mm)

dd669fcafafd

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)

712856b63011

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

678adffecf68

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

aa3090106c01

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

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)	1
pivot crosses (far parent)	7
random immigrants	1

mutation σ 0.095 of gene range
pivot σ 0.285 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 8.976, g1 8.976, g2 8.976, g3 8.911, g4 8.849, g5 8.804, g6 8.417, g7 8.417, g8 8.417, g9 8.417, g10 8.417, g11 8.417, g12 8.191, g13 8.191, g14 8.191, g15 8.182, g16 8.182, g17 8.182, g18 8.161, g19 8.161, g20 8.126 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 8 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 8.126 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.935, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 32.8942, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.5433, "plate_length_scale": 0.9996, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.0316, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.5167, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7191, "material": 0.0002} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.34, "crosswind": 4.98, "gusty_light": 4.5, "hot_thin": 3.69, "storm": 6.45}
fitness 8.161 Wh/km-agg, frame 84 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.9654, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 32.9374, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.5157, "plate_length_scale": 0.9986, "plate_width_scale": 0.9818, "deck_gap": 0.0304, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.5151, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7556, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.39, "crosswind": 4.99, "gusty_light": 4.51, "hot_thin": 3.68, "storm": 6.49}
fitness 8.182 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.95, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.5, "plate_length_scale": 1.0, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.03, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.5, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.72, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.41, "crosswind": 5.0, "gusty_light": 4.53, "hot_thin": 3.69, "storm": 6.51}
fitness 8.191 Wh/km-agg, frame 84 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.95, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.5, "plate_length_scale": 1.0, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.03, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.5, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.75, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.45, "cold_headwind": 6.41, "crosswind": 5.01, "gusty_light": 4.53, "hot_thin": 3.69, "storm": 6.51}
fitness 8.248 Wh/km-agg, frame 90 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.9695, "arm_width_scale": 0.837, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 39.4029, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.5839, "plate_length_scale": 0.979, "plate_width_scale": 1.0588, "deck_gap": 0.0322, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8093, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.5, "crosswind": 5.0, "gusty_light": 4.55, "hot_thin": 3.7, "storm": 6.57}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g11 `f2ccb428` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Break the all-carbon monoculture with PETG for storm-rain toughness, but unlike every prior failed printed-material probe, pair it with genuinely reinforced arm geometry (width 1.0, waist 0.85, thickness 0.0065) and thick plates (1.3x) so the tip-deflection failure that killed asa/pet_cf/petg/pa12_cf attempts can't recur, while stock-adjacent sweeps and a de-maxed wedge avoid stacking a second ris
- g12 `30f271ae` fitness 8.363 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite spends its whole frontal-area budget on a maxed battery wedge while keeping sweeps timidly close to stock -- this design retreats the wedge to 6deg and instead braces the airframe with real (but bolt-safe) sweep triangulation plus thin decks, betting that geometric strength substitutes for both the wedge trick and the deck-plate bulk simultaneously.
- g12 `3958e3b9` fitness 8.485 Wh/km-agg — was: Prior isolated long-wheelbase tests (arm_length_scale 1.28-1.30) underperformed but were never paired with thin decks, so this design stretches to a moderate 1.15 with a rear-sweep brace for tip stability and drops plate_thickness_scale to 0.75, combining the moment-arm restructuring and ephemeral-deck axes that earlier probes tested only separately, while keeping the proven wedge trick intact to 
- g12 `3ae2747c` fitness 8.191 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family has held plate_thickness_scale in a tight 1.19-1.25 cluster despite never being pushed downward toward the 0.7 floor -- this pivot isolates that untested mass tax by dropping deck plates to 0.75x while keeping the proven near-stock geometry and maxed battery wedge unchanged, testing whether carbon's stiffness-to-weight ratio makes the elite's thick decks an unearned tax rather tha
- g15 `168c3f15` fitness 8.182 Wh/km-agg — was: Retest the ephemeralized-deck floor below 0.75x but with plate_length/width restored to the champion's safe 1.0x, isolating the thickness axis instead of conflating it with a shrunk plate scale that crushed the FC-stack web.
- g15 `722bb4a8` fitness 8.364 Wh/km-agg — was: Geodesic-braced long-wheelbase with the wedge trick abandoned entirely: combine a moderate wheelbase stretch (lower disk loading) with genuine sweep triangulation on both arms, reinvesting the freed frontal-area budget into deck_gap margin, to test whether pure geometric bracing can beat the wedge-dependent elite cluster -- a combination two prior probes tried separately but never together.
- g15 `9780185b` fitness 8.321 Wh/km-agg — was: Retry the rear-sweep geodesic brace but grow plate_length_scale further (1.08 to 1.15) so the arm tongue bolts stay seated on the enlarged main plate, trimming battery wedge slightly to keep the frontal-area budget balanced.
- g16 `8306b049` fitness 10.254 Wh/km-agg — was: Every printed-material probe so far died to arm tip deflection because it kept the carbon family's deep-waist tension-truss trick on a weaker material; this design abandons that trick entirely -- full-width, unwaisted, near-max-thickness PA12-CF arm plus thick decks -- to finally test whether a toughness-first, non-carbon frame is even viable, breaking the all-carbon monoculture that every elite s
- g16 `96878b1c` fitness 8.782 Wh/km-agg — was: Long-wheelbase and maxed-battery-wedge have each been tested in isolation (long arm alone underperformed at 9.08-9.14, wedge alone tops out the current elites at 8.18) but never combined -- this design stacks both frontal-area/disk-loading levers together with elite-floor arm bulk and only a modest plate-scale bump for the moderately swept tongues, staking out a genuinely unexplored corner of the 
- g17 `0e54d60f` fitness 10.724 Wh/km-agg — was: Test the opposite structural philosophy from every elite's tension-truss-at-minimum-mass assumption: stretch the wheelbase to 1.25 for genuinely lower disk loading, but this time pair it with a real full-width compression wall (width 1.1, waist 1.0, thickness 0.006) instead of a deep-waisted truss, on stock-adjacent sweeps and modest wedge so the long-arm-plus-bulk trade is isolated and its Wh/km-
- g17 `60382b2b` fitness 9.285 Wh/km-agg — was: Break the all-carbon monoculture properly this time: keep the elite's proven safe stock-adjacent geometry (33/37.5 sweep, 1.0/1.0 plates, 0.032 deck_gap) so only the material axis changes, but give PA12-CF real reinforcement -- moderate width and waist (0.95/0.85, not the carbon family's deep truss) and mid-range thickness (0.0065 m) plus plate_thickness_scale 0.95 -- enough margin above the print
- g17 `f9ea3427` fitness 8.792 Wh/km-agg — was: Abandon the maxed-battery-wedge frontal-area trick and the arm's own minimum-mass floor is kept, but this time strength comes from a genuinely full geodesic dome: both sweeps swung far past stock (42/50 vs 31.4/36) with plate scales grown to the rule-of-thumb 1.28/1.24 to keep tongue bolts anchored, and deck_gap opened to 0.038 m to starve the dominant rotor/deck-clearance failure mode outright in
- g18 `364861df` fitness 8.621 Wh/km-agg — was: The 25+12+14 rotor/deck-clearance rejects in the failure histogram have kept every elite's deck_gap pinned at 0.03-0.032 and wedge below 14.5, so this design spends real standoff mass to open deck_gap to 0.040 and buys enough vertical margin to combine the never-tried pairing of a stretched 1.15 wheelbase (lower disk loading) with the true 15deg wedge ceiling, testing whether clearance rather than
- g18 `44d60067` fitness 9.071 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite's arm sits at floor width with a deep waist (a thin truss) or, when tried otherwise, a full-bulk compression wall that failed outright -- this design tests the untried middle path of a wide-flange arm (width 1.1, only lightly waisted at 0.65, thickness still at floor) carrying moderate front/rear sweep triangulation with plate scales grown per the tongue-bolt rule of thumb, letting fla
- g18 `677ff932` fitness 9.350 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite is 100% carbon at floor arm mass with near-stock geometry — break the material monoculture with genuinely reinforced PET-CF (moderate width/waist/thickness matching the one successful PA12-CF template, thick decks well past the 0.8x printed-material floor) on the exact stock-adjacent geometry already proven valid, isolating whether a tougher material earns back its density penalty once
- g19 `930f0f43` fitness 9.544 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite is carbon at arm-mass floor; PLA+ has never been properly tested (its one random trial failed from arm overstress, not tip deflection), so this design breaks the monoculture with PLA+ on stock-adjacent, low-risk geometry but gives the arm real cross-section (width 1.0, light waist 0.85, thickness 0.007) and plates at 0.85x (above the 0.8x printed-material floor) to finally survive wher
- g19 `99aabf80` fitness 8.671 Wh/km-agg — was: Past probes changed only one lever at a time (wheelbase alone, sweep alone, wedge alone, gap alone) and each underperformed in isolation; this design stacks all four moderately at once: a modest 1.08 wheelbase stretch, real-but-restrained sweep triangulation (37/42) with matching 1.05 plate growth, generous 0.037 deck_gap to starve the dominant rotor/deck-clearance failure mode, and a still-strong
- g19 `cc389578` fitness 8.657 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite shares one trait: frontal area cut via maxed battery wedge on near-stock geometry, so this pivot abandons the wedge entirely (2deg) and instead braces the airframe with genuine sweep triangulation (40/45 vs stock 31.4/36) plus a stretched 1.15 wheelbase for lower disk loading, growing plates 1.10/1.10 to keep tongue bolts anchored and testing whether geometric bracing plus moment-arm r
- g20 `13a83031` fitness 9.313 Wh/km-agg — was: Frog mid-leap asymmetry: soften the failed 30.5/55 deg sweep split to 32/48 deg and grow plate_length/width_scale past the rule-of-thumb minimum (1.15/1.18 vs the ~1.12 needed) so the long swept rear tongue bolts stay anchored, reinvesting the abandoned battery-wedge budget into rear arm reinforcement instead.
- g20 `5e3f8986` fitness 10.562 Wh/km-agg — was: Abandon the all-carbon floor-mass tension-truss for frog-skin compliance: PETG with a wide, only lightly waisted arm and real thickness margin (well past the thickness/waist combo that killed every prior printed-material probe), on safe stock-adjacent geometry so only the material+cross-section axis changes.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.56 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 4, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 27, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 15, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 18, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 24, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 2, "plates too thin for asa (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 3, "plates too thin for asa (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.35 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.46 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.57 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.36 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 9, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.17 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.83 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.50 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.94 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.39 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.38 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.81 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.79 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm overstressed (pla_plus)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.72 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.03 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.35 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.07 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.41 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "cold_headwind: battery pack cannot deliver demanded power": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.92 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.15 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.40 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.12 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.93 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.71 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.30 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.96 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1}

USER INSPIRATION -- the researcher asked you to draw on the ideas below when proposing designs. Translate them into the genome; do not ignore them:
# Frogs

Think of the shapes of frogs when coming up with new ideas.

- A frog at rest is a low, wide squat: mass carried close to the ground
  plane, limbs folded tight against the body. What is the quadcopter
  equivalent of tucking in — minimal deck gap, battery laid flat, arms
  hugging the plate?
- A frog mid-leap is the opposite: limbs at full asymmetric extension,
  rear legs long and powerful, front legs short and braced for landing.
  Try strongly asymmetric sweep — long swept-back rear arms, short
  forward arms.
- Webbed feet spread load over area with almost no mass. Where can a
  wide, thin structure replace a thick one?
- Frog skin is compliant; frogs absorb landings through flex, not
  stiffness. Consider the flexible filaments with generous arm width
  instead of maximum-stiffness carbon.


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 4c7dffe1 — Every elite converges on a floor-mass, deep-waisted (0.55) tension-truss arm that has plateaued at ~8.1 while storm and cold_headwind remain the dominant costs -- webbed-foot logic replaces the narrow thick truss with a wide, barely-waisted, thin flange (width 1.15, waist 1.15, thickness 0.0045) that spreads load over area at similar mass, trading maxed battery wedge (14.5->8) and thin decks (0.72flew at 9.633 Wh/km
candidate f4c0a73c — Frog mid-leap asymmetric sweep (rear 55deg vs 36 stock) paired with the proven PA12-CF reinforced arm cross-section from a prior successful probe (width 0.95, waist 0.85, thickness 0.0065), but this time growing plate_length/width_scale to 1.42/1.32 -- well past the ~1.38 the tongue-bolt rule of thumb demands -- so the swept rear tongue bolts stay anchored where the prior attempt's tighter 1.28/1.flew at 9.932 Wh/km
candidate 9016d2ed — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — Frog mid-leap: short braced front legs (30.5deg, near floor) and long powerful swept rear legs (54deg) on genuinely reinforced PA12-CF (matching the one previously-valid printed-material template's width/waist/thickness) with plate scales grown to the rule-of-thumb ceiling (1.28/1.20) to keep the far-swept rear tongue bolts anchored, abandoning the wedge trick (14.5->4) to bet that compliant asymm
candidate c9319f46 — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Every elite spends its whole frontal-area budget on a maxed battery wedge (14.5deg) atop a minimum-mass frame -- this design tests the frog-at-rest squat instead: flatten the battery entirely (wedge=0), fold the wheelbase in tight (arm_length_scale 0.85) and near-minimum deck_gap (0.025), then reinvest all the freed mass budget into real structural armor (arm width 1.0/waist 0.8/thickness 0.0065,
candidate 52910a5f — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Frog-at-rest squat: pull deck_gap down to 0.026 and flatten the battery wedge to 0 for a low tucked profile, replace the elite family's deep carbon truss with a wide (1.05) unwaisted webbed-foot PETG flange for load-spreading compliance instead of stiffness, and restore arm_length_scale to 0.93 (from the 0.85 that caused rotor overlap) to keep tip clearance safe.

96a6924c438d

8.126 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	6.34
crosswind	4.98
gusty_light	4.50
hot_thin	3.69
storm	6.45

ee1b99647533

8.161 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	6.39
crosswind	4.99
gusty_light	4.51
hot_thin	3.68
storm	6.49

41a3c9ccb306

8.185 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.45
cold_headwind	6.41
crosswind	5.00
gusty_light	4.53
hot_thin	3.69
storm	6.51

b9248eaa8d0a

8.297 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.49
cold_headwind	6.50
crosswind	5.08
gusty_light	4.59
hot_thin	3.73
storm	6.60

8196e851cddd

8.893 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.65
cold_headwind	7.07
crosswind	5.45
gusty_light	4.89
hot_thin	3.90
storm	7.10

4c7dffe16932

9.633 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.73
cold_headwind	7.84
crosswind	5.79
gusty_light	5.18
hot_thin	4.02
storm	7.71

f4c0a73c7df1

9.932 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.84
cold_headwind	8.08
crosswind	6.07
gusty_light	5.35
hot_thin	4.10
storm	7.92

499d0a95f92c

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

d175103c6f76

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.85 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

e6d70e6397dc

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

29a3397eb415

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

9168cb2487da

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.52 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

c72495c5669e

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)

bfe0af5e1cf7

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

653b8d13dfbf

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

982b5ed734ba

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

generation 20

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 0.098 of gene range
pivot σ 0.294 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 8.976, g1 8.976, g2 8.976, g3 8.911, g4 8.849, g5 8.804, g6 8.417, g7 8.417, g8 8.417, g9 8.417, g10 8.417, g11 8.417, g12 8.191, g13 8.191, g14 8.191, g15 8.182, g16 8.182, g17 8.182, g18 8.161, g19 8.161 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 7 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 8.161 Wh/km-agg, frame 84 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.9654, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 32.9374, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.5157, "plate_length_scale": 0.9986, "plate_width_scale": 0.9818, "deck_gap": 0.0304, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.5151, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7556, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.39, "crosswind": 4.99, "gusty_light": 4.51, "hot_thin": 3.68, "storm": 6.49}
fitness 8.182 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.95, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.5, "plate_length_scale": 1.0, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.03, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.5, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.72, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.41, "crosswind": 5.0, "gusty_light": 4.53, "hot_thin": 3.69, "storm": 6.51}
fitness 8.191 Wh/km-agg, frame 84 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.95, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.5, "plate_length_scale": 1.0, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.03, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.5, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.75, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.45, "cold_headwind": 6.41, "crosswind": 5.01, "gusty_light": 4.53, "hot_thin": 3.69, "storm": 6.51}
fitness 8.248 Wh/km-agg, frame 90 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.9695, "arm_width_scale": 0.837, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 39.4029, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.5839, "plate_length_scale": 0.979, "plate_width_scale": 1.0588, "deck_gap": 0.0322, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8093, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.5, "crosswind": 5.0, "gusty_light": 4.55, "hot_thin": 3.7, "storm": 6.57}
fitness 8.249 Wh/km-agg, frame 84 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.9502, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.6138, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.0076, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.4856, "plate_length_scale": 0.9994, "plate_width_scale": 1.0004, "deck_gap": 0.03, "battery_wedge_deg": 15.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7218, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.46, "cold_headwind": 6.48, "crosswind": 5.04, "gusty_light": 4.56, "hot_thin": 3.71, "storm": 6.56}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g11 `579452c0` fitness 8.791 Wh/km-agg — was: Abandon the maxed-wedge frontal-area trick entirely (wedge -> ~1.5 deg) and instead brace the airframe geometrically with real (not timid) sweep triangulation, using the freed-up wedge budget to open deck_gap to 0.036 m and starve the dominant rotor/deck-clearance failure mode outright.
- g11 `79219798` fitness 9.081 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite clusters at wheelbase 0.9-1.04; push arm_length_scale to 1.28 (near its 1.35 ceiling, an unexplored region) to cut disk loading via moment-arm restructuring instead of plate/wedge bulk, keeping sweeps stock-adjacent and wedge moderate so the long-arm variable is isolated rather than conflated with other risky changes as in prior long-wheelbase attempts.
- g11 `f2ccb428` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Break the all-carbon monoculture with PETG for storm-rain toughness, but unlike every prior failed printed-material probe, pair it with genuinely reinforced arm geometry (width 1.0, waist 0.85, thickness 0.0065) and thick plates (1.3x) so the tip-deflection failure that killed asa/pet_cf/petg/pa12_cf attempts can't recur, while stock-adjacent sweeps and a de-maxed wedge avoid stacking a second ris
- g12 `30f271ae` fitness 8.363 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite spends its whole frontal-area budget on a maxed battery wedge while keeping sweeps timidly close to stock -- this design retreats the wedge to 6deg and instead braces the airframe with real (but bolt-safe) sweep triangulation plus thin decks, betting that geometric strength substitutes for both the wedge trick and the deck-plate bulk simultaneously.
- g12 `3958e3b9` fitness 8.485 Wh/km-agg — was: Prior isolated long-wheelbase tests (arm_length_scale 1.28-1.30) underperformed but were never paired with thin decks, so this design stretches to a moderate 1.15 with a rear-sweep brace for tip stability and drops plate_thickness_scale to 0.75, combining the moment-arm restructuring and ephemeral-deck axes that earlier probes tested only separately, while keeping the proven wedge trick intact to 
- g12 `3ae2747c` fitness 8.191 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family has held plate_thickness_scale in a tight 1.19-1.25 cluster despite never being pushed downward toward the 0.7 floor -- this pivot isolates that untested mass tax by dropping deck plates to 0.75x while keeping the proven near-stock geometry and maxed battery wedge unchanged, testing whether carbon's stiffness-to-weight ratio makes the elite's thick decks an unearned tax rather tha
- g15 `168c3f15` fitness 8.182 Wh/km-agg — was: Retest the ephemeralized-deck floor below 0.75x but with plate_length/width restored to the champion's safe 1.0x, isolating the thickness axis instead of conflating it with a shrunk plate scale that crushed the FC-stack web.
- g15 `722bb4a8` fitness 8.364 Wh/km-agg — was: Geodesic-braced long-wheelbase with the wedge trick abandoned entirely: combine a moderate wheelbase stretch (lower disk loading) with genuine sweep triangulation on both arms, reinvesting the freed frontal-area budget into deck_gap margin, to test whether pure geometric bracing can beat the wedge-dependent elite cluster -- a combination two prior probes tried separately but never together.
- g15 `9780185b` fitness 8.321 Wh/km-agg — was: Retry the rear-sweep geodesic brace but grow plate_length_scale further (1.08 to 1.15) so the arm tongue bolts stay seated on the enlarged main plate, trimming battery wedge slightly to keep the frontal-area budget balanced.
- g16 `8306b049` fitness 10.254 Wh/km-agg — was: Every printed-material probe so far died to arm tip deflection because it kept the carbon family's deep-waist tension-truss trick on a weaker material; this design abandons that trick entirely -- full-width, unwaisted, near-max-thickness PA12-CF arm plus thick decks -- to finally test whether a toughness-first, non-carbon frame is even viable, breaking the all-carbon monoculture that every elite s
- g16 `96878b1c` fitness 8.782 Wh/km-agg — was: Long-wheelbase and maxed-battery-wedge have each been tested in isolation (long arm alone underperformed at 9.08-9.14, wedge alone tops out the current elites at 8.18) but never combined -- this design stacks both frontal-area/disk-loading levers together with elite-floor arm bulk and only a modest plate-scale bump for the moderately swept tongues, staking out a genuinely unexplored corner of the 
- g17 `0e54d60f` fitness 10.724 Wh/km-agg — was: Test the opposite structural philosophy from every elite's tension-truss-at-minimum-mass assumption: stretch the wheelbase to 1.25 for genuinely lower disk loading, but this time pair it with a real full-width compression wall (width 1.1, waist 1.0, thickness 0.006) instead of a deep-waisted truss, on stock-adjacent sweeps and modest wedge so the long-arm-plus-bulk trade is isolated and its Wh/km-
- g17 `60382b2b` fitness 9.285 Wh/km-agg — was: Break the all-carbon monoculture properly this time: keep the elite's proven safe stock-adjacent geometry (33/37.5 sweep, 1.0/1.0 plates, 0.032 deck_gap) so only the material axis changes, but give PA12-CF real reinforcement -- moderate width and waist (0.95/0.85, not the carbon family's deep truss) and mid-range thickness (0.0065 m) plus plate_thickness_scale 0.95 -- enough margin above the print
- g17 `f9ea3427` fitness 8.792 Wh/km-agg — was: Abandon the maxed-battery-wedge frontal-area trick and the arm's own minimum-mass floor is kept, but this time strength comes from a genuinely full geodesic dome: both sweeps swung far past stock (42/50 vs 31.4/36) with plate scales grown to the rule-of-thumb 1.28/1.24 to keep tongue bolts anchored, and deck_gap opened to 0.038 m to starve the dominant rotor/deck-clearance failure mode outright in
- g18 `364861df` fitness 8.621 Wh/km-agg — was: The 25+12+14 rotor/deck-clearance rejects in the failure histogram have kept every elite's deck_gap pinned at 0.03-0.032 and wedge below 14.5, so this design spends real standoff mass to open deck_gap to 0.040 and buys enough vertical margin to combine the never-tried pairing of a stretched 1.15 wheelbase (lower disk loading) with the true 15deg wedge ceiling, testing whether clearance rather than
- g18 `44d60067` fitness 9.071 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite's arm sits at floor width with a deep waist (a thin truss) or, when tried otherwise, a full-bulk compression wall that failed outright -- this design tests the untried middle path of a wide-flange arm (width 1.1, only lightly waisted at 0.65, thickness still at floor) carrying moderate front/rear sweep triangulation with plate scales grown per the tongue-bolt rule of thumb, letting fla
- g18 `677ff932` fitness 9.350 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite is 100% carbon at floor arm mass with near-stock geometry — break the material monoculture with genuinely reinforced PET-CF (moderate width/waist/thickness matching the one successful PA12-CF template, thick decks well past the 0.8x printed-material floor) on the exact stock-adjacent geometry already proven valid, isolating whether a tougher material earns back its density penalty once
- g19 `930f0f43` fitness 9.544 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite is carbon at arm-mass floor; PLA+ has never been properly tested (its one random trial failed from arm overstress, not tip deflection), so this design breaks the monoculture with PLA+ on stock-adjacent, low-risk geometry but gives the arm real cross-section (width 1.0, light waist 0.85, thickness 0.007) and plates at 0.85x (above the 0.8x printed-material floor) to finally survive wher
- g19 `99aabf80` fitness 8.671 Wh/km-agg — was: Past probes changed only one lever at a time (wheelbase alone, sweep alone, wedge alone, gap alone) and each underperformed in isolation; this design stacks all four moderately at once: a modest 1.08 wheelbase stretch, real-but-restrained sweep triangulation (37/42) with matching 1.05 plate growth, generous 0.037 deck_gap to starve the dominant rotor/deck-clearance failure mode, and a still-strong
- g19 `cc389578` fitness 8.657 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite shares one trait: frontal area cut via maxed battery wedge on near-stock geometry, so this pivot abandons the wedge entirely (2deg) and instead braces the airframe with genuine sweep triangulation (40/45 vs stock 31.4/36) plus a stretched 1.15 wheelbase for lower disk loading, growing plates 1.10/1.10 to keep tongue bolts anchored and testing whether geometric bracing plus moment-arm r

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.56 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 4, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 27, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 15, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 18, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 22, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 2, "plates too thin for asa (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 3, "plates too thin for asa (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.35 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.46 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.57 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.36 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 7, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.17 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.83 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.50 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.94 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.39 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.38 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.81 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.79 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm overstressed (pla_plus)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.72 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.03 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.35 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.07 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.41 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "cold_headwind: battery pack cannot deliver demanded power": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.92 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.15 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.40 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.12 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.93 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.71 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1}

USER INSPIRATION -- the researcher asked you to draw on the ideas below when proposing designs. Translate them into the genome; do not ignore them:
# Frogs

Think of the shapes of frogs when coming up with new ideas.

- A frog at rest is a low, wide squat: mass carried close to the ground
  plane, limbs folded tight against the body. What is the quadcopter
  equivalent of tucking in — minimal deck gap, battery laid flat, arms
  hugging the plate?
- A frog mid-leap is the opposite: limbs at full asymmetric extension,
  rear legs long and powerful, front legs short and braced for landing.
  Try strongly asymmetric sweep — long swept-back rear arms, short
  forward arms.
- Webbed feet spread load over area with almost no mass. Where can a
  wide, thin structure replace a thick one?
- Frog skin is compliant; frogs absorb landings through flex, not
  stiffness. Consider the flexible filaments with generous arm width
  instead of maximum-stiffness carbon.


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 5e3f8986 — Abandon the all-carbon floor-mass tension-truss for frog-skin compliance: PETG with a wide, only lightly waisted arm and real thickness margin (well past the thickness/waist combo that killed every prior printed-material probe), on safe stock-adjacent geometry so only the material+cross-section axis changes.flew at 10.562 Wh/km
candidate 13a83031 — Frog mid-leap asymmetry: soften the failed 30.5/55 deg sweep split to 32/48 deg and grow plate_length/width_scale past the rule-of-thumb minimum (1.15/1.18 vs the ~1.12 needed) so the long swept rear tongue bolts stay anchored, reinvesting the abandoned battery-wedge budget into rear arm reinforcement instead.flew at 9.313 Wh/km
candidate 0522103c — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Abandon the wedge trick and standard stance entirely — tuck the frog in: flat battery (no wedge), short wheelbase, minimal deck_gap, and a wide-flat (unwaisted) low-mass arm that spreads load over area instead of relying on tilt or truss depth.
candidate 14498172 — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — Abandon near-stock sweep in favor of a frog mid-leap: short braced front arms near their sweep floor and long swept-back rear arms with plate scales grown per the tongue-bolt rule, letting asymmetric geometric bracing (not the maxed wedge) carry the airframe.
candidate e0fc3c12 — rejected pre-flight (rotor too close to deck/battery) — Frog-at-rest tucked posture: replace the failed short-wheelbase (0.8) wide-arm design's rotor-overlap with a stock-length wheelbase so the wide, nearly-unwaisted webbed-foot arm has clearance, while keeping deck_gap low and battery wedge at zero (flat, ground-hugging) to abandon the maxed-wedge frontal-area trick entirely.

96a6924c438d

8.126 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	6.34
crosswind	4.98
gusty_light	4.50
hot_thin	3.69
storm	6.45

ee1b99647533

8.161 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	6.39
crosswind	4.99
gusty_light	4.51
hot_thin	3.68
storm	6.49

168c3f15a835

8.182 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	6.41
crosswind	5.00
gusty_light	4.53
hot_thin	3.69
storm	6.51

e7e03181ab0e

8.570 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.54
cold_headwind	6.82
crosswind	5.23
gusty_light	4.71
hot_thin	3.78
storm	6.84

683be6247a7c

8.731 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.59
cold_headwind	6.94
crosswind	5.35
gusty_light	4.80
hot_thin	3.84
storm	6.97

00b932b716c0

8.737 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.54
cold_headwind	7.01
crosswind	5.30
gusty_light	4.78
hot_thin	3.80
storm	6.98

13a830315571

9.313 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.80
cold_headwind	7.45
crosswind	5.68
gusty_light	5.10
hot_thin	4.06
storm	7.44

5e3f898635c8

10.562 wh/km agg

calm_warm	4.06
cold_headwind	8.59
crosswind	6.45
gusty_light	5.70
hot_thin	4.33
storm	8.48

d0550d8dc260

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.96 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

4b7bc2bcd75f

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

6c7c74548cc3

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

bea63862fbee

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.30 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

d5936bac9dde

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

3056a97974b4

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

7c50a90b1e0d

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

2e90ef740be5

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

generation 19

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 0.101 of gene range
pivot σ 0.300 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 8.976, g1 8.976, g2 8.976, g3 8.911, g4 8.849, g5 8.804, g6 8.417, g7 8.417, g8 8.417, g9 8.417, g10 8.417, g11 8.417, g12 8.191, g13 8.191, g14 8.191, g15 8.182, g16 8.182, g17 8.182, g18 8.161 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 6 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 8.161 Wh/km-agg, frame 84 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.9654, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 32.9374, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.5157, "plate_length_scale": 0.9986, "plate_width_scale": 0.9818, "deck_gap": 0.0304, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.5151, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.7556, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.39, "crosswind": 4.99, "gusty_light": 4.51, "hot_thin": 3.68, "storm": 6.49}
fitness 8.182 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.95, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.5, "plate_length_scale": 1.0, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.03, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.5, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.72, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.41, "crosswind": 5.0, "gusty_light": 4.53, "hot_thin": 3.69, "storm": 6.51}
fitness 8.191 Wh/km-agg, frame 84 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.95, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.5, "plate_length_scale": 1.0, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.03, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.5, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.75, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.45, "cold_headwind": 6.41, "crosswind": 5.01, "gusty_light": 4.53, "hot_thin": 3.69, "storm": 6.51}
fitness 8.248 Wh/km-agg, frame 90 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.9695, "arm_width_scale": 0.837, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 39.4029, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.5839, "plate_length_scale": 0.979, "plate_width_scale": 1.0588, "deck_gap": 0.0322, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8093, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.5, "crosswind": 5.0, "gusty_light": 4.55, "hot_thin": 3.7, "storm": 6.57}
fitness 8.250 Wh/km-agg, frame 90 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.969, "arm_width_scale": 0.8367, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 38.7749, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.0838, "plate_length_scale": 0.9828, "plate_width_scale": 1.0613, "deck_gap": 0.0322, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.806, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.52, "crosswind": 5.0, "gusty_light": 4.55, "hot_thin": 3.7, "storm": 6.57}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g10 `0437c36d` fitness 8.865 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite has already driven arm mass to its floor (waist 0.55, thickness 0.004) and battery tilt to its ceiling (~15deg) yet plateaued at 8.42 Wh/km-agg with only timid sweep deviation from stock — this design abandons bulk entirely and pushes both sweeps far past stock (42/50 vs stock ~31/36) into genuine geodesic triangulation, growing plates to 1.28/1.22 to keep the tongue bolts anchored and
- g10 `5c5784b9` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Every elite is an all-carbon monoculture; this design tests ephemeralization on the material axis instead, letting tougher PETG carry storm-gust loads through generous plate thickness (1.35x, well past the printed-material floor) while the arm returns to a stock-adjacent, moderately-waisted profile rather than the earlier failed PA12-CF probe's bulky wide arm, aiming to survive where that one brok
- g10 `b46801ba` fitness 9.143 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family spends its entire frontal-area budget on a maxed battery wedge that sits right against the dominant rotor-clearance failure mode (17 rejects in the histogram); this design abandons wedge tilt almost entirely (2deg) and instead cuts disk loading by stretching the wheelbase toward its 1.30 ceiling on a cheap deep-waisted tension-truss arm, with a touch more thickness than prior long
- g11 `579452c0` fitness 8.791 Wh/km-agg — was: Abandon the maxed-wedge frontal-area trick entirely (wedge -> ~1.5 deg) and instead brace the airframe geometrically with real (not timid) sweep triangulation, using the freed-up wedge budget to open deck_gap to 0.036 m and starve the dominant rotor/deck-clearance failure mode outright.
- g11 `79219798` fitness 9.081 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite clusters at wheelbase 0.9-1.04; push arm_length_scale to 1.28 (near its 1.35 ceiling, an unexplored region) to cut disk loading via moment-arm restructuring instead of plate/wedge bulk, keeping sweeps stock-adjacent and wedge moderate so the long-arm variable is isolated rather than conflated with other risky changes as in prior long-wheelbase attempts.
- g11 `f2ccb428` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Break the all-carbon monoculture with PETG for storm-rain toughness, but unlike every prior failed printed-material probe, pair it with genuinely reinforced arm geometry (width 1.0, waist 0.85, thickness 0.0065) and thick plates (1.3x) so the tip-deflection failure that killed asa/pet_cf/petg/pa12_cf attempts can't recur, while stock-adjacent sweeps and a de-maxed wedge avoid stacking a second ris
- g12 `30f271ae` fitness 8.363 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite spends its whole frontal-area budget on a maxed battery wedge while keeping sweeps timidly close to stock -- this design retreats the wedge to 6deg and instead braces the airframe with real (but bolt-safe) sweep triangulation plus thin decks, betting that geometric strength substitutes for both the wedge trick and the deck-plate bulk simultaneously.
- g12 `3958e3b9` fitness 8.485 Wh/km-agg — was: Prior isolated long-wheelbase tests (arm_length_scale 1.28-1.30) underperformed but were never paired with thin decks, so this design stretches to a moderate 1.15 with a rear-sweep brace for tip stability and drops plate_thickness_scale to 0.75, combining the moment-arm restructuring and ephemeral-deck axes that earlier probes tested only separately, while keeping the proven wedge trick intact to 
- g12 `3ae2747c` fitness 8.191 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family has held plate_thickness_scale in a tight 1.19-1.25 cluster despite never being pushed downward toward the 0.7 floor -- this pivot isolates that untested mass tax by dropping deck plates to 0.75x while keeping the proven near-stock geometry and maxed battery wedge unchanged, testing whether carbon's stiffness-to-weight ratio makes the elite's thick decks an unearned tax rather tha
- g15 `168c3f15` fitness 8.182 Wh/km-agg — was: Retest the ephemeralized-deck floor below 0.75x but with plate_length/width restored to the champion's safe 1.0x, isolating the thickness axis instead of conflating it with a shrunk plate scale that crushed the FC-stack web.
- g15 `722bb4a8` fitness 8.364 Wh/km-agg — was: Geodesic-braced long-wheelbase with the wedge trick abandoned entirely: combine a moderate wheelbase stretch (lower disk loading) with genuine sweep triangulation on both arms, reinvesting the freed frontal-area budget into deck_gap margin, to test whether pure geometric bracing can beat the wedge-dependent elite cluster -- a combination two prior probes tried separately but never together.
- g15 `9780185b` fitness 8.321 Wh/km-agg — was: Retry the rear-sweep geodesic brace but grow plate_length_scale further (1.08 to 1.15) so the arm tongue bolts stay seated on the enlarged main plate, trimming battery wedge slightly to keep the frontal-area budget balanced.
- g16 `8306b049` fitness 10.254 Wh/km-agg — was: Every printed-material probe so far died to arm tip deflection because it kept the carbon family's deep-waist tension-truss trick on a weaker material; this design abandons that trick entirely -- full-width, unwaisted, near-max-thickness PA12-CF arm plus thick decks -- to finally test whether a toughness-first, non-carbon frame is even viable, breaking the all-carbon monoculture that every elite s
- g16 `96878b1c` fitness 8.782 Wh/km-agg — was: Long-wheelbase and maxed-battery-wedge have each been tested in isolation (long arm alone underperformed at 9.08-9.14, wedge alone tops out the current elites at 8.18) but never combined -- this design stacks both frontal-area/disk-loading levers together with elite-floor arm bulk and only a modest plate-scale bump for the moderately swept tongues, staking out a genuinely unexplored corner of the 
- g17 `0e54d60f` fitness 10.724 Wh/km-agg — was: Test the opposite structural philosophy from every elite's tension-truss-at-minimum-mass assumption: stretch the wheelbase to 1.25 for genuinely lower disk loading, but this time pair it with a real full-width compression wall (width 1.1, waist 1.0, thickness 0.006) instead of a deep-waisted truss, on stock-adjacent sweeps and modest wedge so the long-arm-plus-bulk trade is isolated and its Wh/km-
- g17 `60382b2b` fitness 9.285 Wh/km-agg — was: Break the all-carbon monoculture properly this time: keep the elite's proven safe stock-adjacent geometry (33/37.5 sweep, 1.0/1.0 plates, 0.032 deck_gap) so only the material axis changes, but give PA12-CF real reinforcement -- moderate width and waist (0.95/0.85, not the carbon family's deep truss) and mid-range thickness (0.0065 m) plus plate_thickness_scale 0.95 -- enough margin above the print
- g17 `f9ea3427` fitness 8.792 Wh/km-agg — was: Abandon the maxed-battery-wedge frontal-area trick and the arm's own minimum-mass floor is kept, but this time strength comes from a genuinely full geodesic dome: both sweeps swung far past stock (42/50 vs 31.4/36) with plate scales grown to the rule-of-thumb 1.28/1.24 to keep tongue bolts anchored, and deck_gap opened to 0.038 m to starve the dominant rotor/deck-clearance failure mode outright in
- g18 `364861df` fitness 8.621 Wh/km-agg — was: The 25+12+14 rotor/deck-clearance rejects in the failure histogram have kept every elite's deck_gap pinned at 0.03-0.032 and wedge below 14.5, so this design spends real standoff mass to open deck_gap to 0.040 and buys enough vertical margin to combine the never-tried pairing of a stretched 1.15 wheelbase (lower disk loading) with the true 15deg wedge ceiling, testing whether clearance rather than
- g18 `44d60067` fitness 9.071 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite's arm sits at floor width with a deep waist (a thin truss) or, when tried otherwise, a full-bulk compression wall that failed outright -- this design tests the untried middle path of a wide-flange arm (width 1.1, only lightly waisted at 0.65, thickness still at floor) carrying moderate front/rear sweep triangulation with plate scales grown per the tongue-bolt rule of thumb, letting fla
- g18 `677ff932` fitness 9.350 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite is 100% carbon at floor arm mass with near-stock geometry — break the material monoculture with genuinely reinforced PET-CF (moderate width/waist/thickness matching the one successful PA12-CF template, thick decks well past the 0.8x printed-material floor) on the exact stock-adjacent geometry already proven valid, isolating whether a tougher material earns back its density penalty once

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.56 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 4, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 26, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 14, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 14, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 22, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 2, "plates too thin for asa (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 3, "plates too thin for asa (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.35 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.46 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.57 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.36 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 7, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.17 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.83 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.50 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.94 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.39 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.38 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.81 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.79 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm overstressed (pla_plus)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.72 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.03 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.35 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.07 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.41 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "cold_headwind: battery pack cannot deliver demanded power": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.92 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.15 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.40 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.12 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.93 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.71 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1}

USER INSPIRATION -- the researcher asked you to draw on the ideas below when proposing designs. Translate them into the genome; do not ignore them:
# Buckminster Fuller — ephemeralization

"How much does your building weigh?" Ask it of every proposal. Fuller's
whole program was ephemeralization: doing more and more with less and
less until eventually you do everything with nothing.

- Weigh everything. The score is energy per kilometer and every gram
  is a recurring tax paid in all six scenarios. Before admiring any
  feature, ask what it weighs and what it earns.
- Tension is cheap, compression is heavy. A fat straight arm resists
  bending like a wall; ask instead where the loads actually flow.
  Deep waisting keeps material only where the bending moment lives —
  an arm can be a truss pretending to be a plate.
- The geodesic insight: strength from geometry, not from bulk. Sweep
  angles triangulate the airframe; a well-chosen pair of front/rear
  sweeps braces the disk like a dome's great circles. Find the
  geometry that lets thickness and width fall.
- Dymaxion: maximum performance per unit of input. Compute each
  elite's Wh/km per gram of frame; propose designs that maximize that
  ratio rather than minimizing either term alone.
- "You never change things by fighting the existing reality." The
  stock frame is the existing reality. Build the new model — the
  radically light one that makes heaviness obsolete — rather than
  filing grams off the old one.


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 cc389578 — Every elite shares one trait: frontal area cut via maxed battery wedge on near-stock geometry, so this pivot abandons the wedge entirely (2deg) and instead braces the airframe with genuine sweep triangulation (40/45 vs stock 31.4/36) plus a stretched 1.15 wheelbase for lower disk loading, growing plates 1.10/1.10 to keep tongue bolts anchored and testing whether geometric bracing plus moment-arm rflew at 8.657 Wh/km
candidate 930f0f43 — Every elite is carbon at arm-mass floor; PLA+ has never been properly tested (its one random trial failed from arm overstress, not tip deflection), so this design breaks the monoculture with PLA+ on stock-adjacent, low-risk geometry but gives the arm real cross-section (width 1.0, light waist 0.85, thickness 0.007) and plates at 0.85x (above the 0.8x printed-material floor) to finally survive wherflew at 9.544 Wh/km
candidate 99aabf80 — Past probes changed only one lever at a time (wheelbase alone, sweep alone, wedge alone, gap alone) and each underperformed in isolation; this design stacks all four moderately at once: a modest 1.08 wheelbase stretch, real-but-restrained sweep triangulation (37/42) with matching 1.05 plate growth, generous 0.037 deck_gap to starve the dominant rotor/deck-clearance failure mode, and a still-strongflew at 8.671 Wh/km

ee1b99647533

8.161 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	6.39
crosswind	4.99
gusty_light	4.51
hot_thin	3.68
storm	6.49

168c3f15a835

8.182 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	6.41
crosswind	5.00
gusty_light	4.53
hot_thin	3.69
storm	6.51

fcb011a2c551

8.249 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.46
cold_headwind	6.48
crosswind	5.04
gusty_light	4.56
hot_thin	3.71
storm	6.56

1f64eb9282c0

8.551 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.50
cold_headwind	6.84
crosswind	5.19
gusty_light	4.68
hot_thin	3.76
storm	6.83

70db3ff49709

8.620 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.55
cold_headwind	6.85
crosswind	5.29
gusty_light	4.75
hot_thin	3.79
storm	6.88

cc38957804f5

8.657 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.52
cold_headwind	6.93
crosswind	5.25
gusty_light	4.74
hot_thin	3.78
storm	6.91

99aabf80e737

8.671 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.58
cold_headwind	6.87
crosswind	5.32
gusty_light	4.78
hot_thin	3.83
storm	6.91

930f0f43c3e4

9.544 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.80
cold_headwind	7.68
crosswind	5.87
gusty_light	5.21
hot_thin	4.06
storm	7.63

4ac9211801ab

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)

4f03961f4da8

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

11c318447f3e

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

bb2ad43752d1

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

dc02657c411a

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

853fcc162151

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)

491c76ac7a81

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

1e4ff75d88d0

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

generation 18

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 0.104 of gene range
pivot σ 0.300 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 8.976, g1 8.976, g2 8.976, g3 8.911, g4 8.849, g5 8.804, g6 8.417, g7 8.417, g8 8.417, g9 8.417, g10 8.417, g11 8.417, g12 8.191, g13 8.191, g14 8.191, g15 8.182, g16 8.182, g17 8.182 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 5 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 8.182 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.95, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.5, "plate_length_scale": 1.0, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.03, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.5, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.72, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.41, "crosswind": 5.0, "gusty_light": 4.53, "hot_thin": 3.69, "storm": 6.51}
fitness 8.191 Wh/km-agg, frame 84 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.95, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.5, "plate_length_scale": 1.0, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.03, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.5, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.75, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.45, "cold_headwind": 6.41, "crosswind": 5.01, "gusty_light": 4.53, "hot_thin": 3.69, "storm": 6.51}
fitness 8.248 Wh/km-agg, frame 90 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.9695, "arm_width_scale": 0.837, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 39.4029, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.5839, "plate_length_scale": 0.979, "plate_width_scale": 1.0588, "deck_gap": 0.0322, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8093, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.5, "crosswind": 5.0, "gusty_light": 4.55, "hot_thin": 3.7, "storm": 6.57}
fitness 8.250 Wh/km-agg, frame 90 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.969, "arm_width_scale": 0.8367, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 38.7749, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.0838, "plate_length_scale": 0.9828, "plate_width_scale": 1.0613, "deck_gap": 0.0322, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.806, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.52, "crosswind": 5.0, "gusty_light": 4.55, "hot_thin": 3.7, "storm": 6.57}
fitness 8.257 Wh/km-agg, frame 90 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.969, "arm_width_scale": 0.8369, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 38.7774, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.0854, "plate_length_scale": 0.9824, "plate_width_scale": 1.0615, "deck_gap": 0.0322, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.1691, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8061, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.52, "crosswind": 5.0, "gusty_light": 4.55, "hot_thin": 3.7, "storm": 6.58}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g6 `50612ef7` fitness 8.804 Wh/km-agg — was: Keep the elite's proven deep-waisted, near-stock-swept geometry but trade a little battery-wedge frontal-area gain for real vertical clearance: deck_gap opened to 0.033 m and wedge trimmed to 11 deg so the tilted battery and rotor plane stop colliding, the failure mode both rejected designs shared.
- g9 `2e045ca5` fitness 8.805 Wh/km-agg — was: Fuller tension-truss arm: stretch the wheelbase to 1.15 for lower disk interference in cruise, betting the longer moment arm's cheap-tension bracing (deep waist, minimum thickness) pays for itself despite the extra reach, with stock-adjacent sweeps keeping the plate scales modest.
- g9 `2e258492` fitness 8.675 Wh/km-agg — was: Geodesic-dome bracing v2: swing the rear sweep out to 48 deg (well beyond the earlier failed 50 deg attempt) but this time grow both plate scales to 1.20 (comfortably above the ~1.12 the rule-of-thumb demands), letting triangulated geometry carry load so the arm can go to its minimum width, waist, and thickness.
- g10 `0437c36d` fitness 8.865 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite has already driven arm mass to its floor (waist 0.55, thickness 0.004) and battery tilt to its ceiling (~15deg) yet plateaued at 8.42 Wh/km-agg with only timid sweep deviation from stock — this design abandons bulk entirely and pushes both sweeps far past stock (42/50 vs stock ~31/36) into genuine geodesic triangulation, growing plates to 1.28/1.22 to keep the tongue bolts anchored and
- g10 `5c5784b9` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Every elite is an all-carbon monoculture; this design tests ephemeralization on the material axis instead, letting tougher PETG carry storm-gust loads through generous plate thickness (1.35x, well past the printed-material floor) while the arm returns to a stock-adjacent, moderately-waisted profile rather than the earlier failed PA12-CF probe's bulky wide arm, aiming to survive where that one brok
- g10 `b46801ba` fitness 9.143 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family spends its entire frontal-area budget on a maxed battery wedge that sits right against the dominant rotor-clearance failure mode (17 rejects in the histogram); this design abandons wedge tilt almost entirely (2deg) and instead cuts disk loading by stretching the wheelbase toward its 1.30 ceiling on a cheap deep-waisted tension-truss arm, with a touch more thickness than prior long
- g11 `579452c0` fitness 8.791 Wh/km-agg — was: Abandon the maxed-wedge frontal-area trick entirely (wedge -> ~1.5 deg) and instead brace the airframe geometrically with real (not timid) sweep triangulation, using the freed-up wedge budget to open deck_gap to 0.036 m and starve the dominant rotor/deck-clearance failure mode outright.
- g11 `79219798` fitness 9.081 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite clusters at wheelbase 0.9-1.04; push arm_length_scale to 1.28 (near its 1.35 ceiling, an unexplored region) to cut disk loading via moment-arm restructuring instead of plate/wedge bulk, keeping sweeps stock-adjacent and wedge moderate so the long-arm variable is isolated rather than conflated with other risky changes as in prior long-wheelbase attempts.
- g11 `f2ccb428` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Break the all-carbon monoculture with PETG for storm-rain toughness, but unlike every prior failed printed-material probe, pair it with genuinely reinforced arm geometry (width 1.0, waist 0.85, thickness 0.0065) and thick plates (1.3x) so the tip-deflection failure that killed asa/pet_cf/petg/pa12_cf attempts can't recur, while stock-adjacent sweeps and a de-maxed wedge avoid stacking a second ris
- g12 `30f271ae` fitness 8.363 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite spends its whole frontal-area budget on a maxed battery wedge while keeping sweeps timidly close to stock -- this design retreats the wedge to 6deg and instead braces the airframe with real (but bolt-safe) sweep triangulation plus thin decks, betting that geometric strength substitutes for both the wedge trick and the deck-plate bulk simultaneously.
- g12 `3958e3b9` fitness 8.485 Wh/km-agg — was: Prior isolated long-wheelbase tests (arm_length_scale 1.28-1.30) underperformed but were never paired with thin decks, so this design stretches to a moderate 1.15 with a rear-sweep brace for tip stability and drops plate_thickness_scale to 0.75, combining the moment-arm restructuring and ephemeral-deck axes that earlier probes tested only separately, while keeping the proven wedge trick intact to 
- g12 `3ae2747c` fitness 8.191 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family has held plate_thickness_scale in a tight 1.19-1.25 cluster despite never being pushed downward toward the 0.7 floor -- this pivot isolates that untested mass tax by dropping deck plates to 0.75x while keeping the proven near-stock geometry and maxed battery wedge unchanged, testing whether carbon's stiffness-to-weight ratio makes the elite's thick decks an unearned tax rather tha
- g15 `168c3f15` fitness 8.182 Wh/km-agg — was: Retest the ephemeralized-deck floor below 0.75x but with plate_length/width restored to the champion's safe 1.0x, isolating the thickness axis instead of conflating it with a shrunk plate scale that crushed the FC-stack web.
- g15 `722bb4a8` fitness 8.364 Wh/km-agg — was: Geodesic-braced long-wheelbase with the wedge trick abandoned entirely: combine a moderate wheelbase stretch (lower disk loading) with genuine sweep triangulation on both arms, reinvesting the freed frontal-area budget into deck_gap margin, to test whether pure geometric bracing can beat the wedge-dependent elite cluster -- a combination two prior probes tried separately but never together.
- g15 `9780185b` fitness 8.321 Wh/km-agg — was: Retry the rear-sweep geodesic brace but grow plate_length_scale further (1.08 to 1.15) so the arm tongue bolts stay seated on the enlarged main plate, trimming battery wedge slightly to keep the frontal-area budget balanced.
- g16 `8306b049` fitness 10.254 Wh/km-agg — was: Every printed-material probe so far died to arm tip deflection because it kept the carbon family's deep-waist tension-truss trick on a weaker material; this design abandons that trick entirely -- full-width, unwaisted, near-max-thickness PA12-CF arm plus thick decks -- to finally test whether a toughness-first, non-carbon frame is even viable, breaking the all-carbon monoculture that every elite s
- g16 `96878b1c` fitness 8.782 Wh/km-agg — was: Long-wheelbase and maxed-battery-wedge have each been tested in isolation (long arm alone underperformed at 9.08-9.14, wedge alone tops out the current elites at 8.18) but never combined -- this design stacks both frontal-area/disk-loading levers together with elite-floor arm bulk and only a modest plate-scale bump for the moderately swept tongues, staking out a genuinely unexplored corner of the 
- g17 `0e54d60f` fitness 10.724 Wh/km-agg — was: Test the opposite structural philosophy from every elite's tension-truss-at-minimum-mass assumption: stretch the wheelbase to 1.25 for genuinely lower disk loading, but this time pair it with a real full-width compression wall (width 1.1, waist 1.0, thickness 0.006) instead of a deep-waisted truss, on stock-adjacent sweeps and modest wedge so the long-arm-plus-bulk trade is isolated and its Wh/km-
- g17 `60382b2b` fitness 9.285 Wh/km-agg — was: Break the all-carbon monoculture properly this time: keep the elite's proven safe stock-adjacent geometry (33/37.5 sweep, 1.0/1.0 plates, 0.032 deck_gap) so only the material axis changes, but give PA12-CF real reinforcement -- moderate width and waist (0.95/0.85, not the carbon family's deep truss) and mid-range thickness (0.0065 m) plus plate_thickness_scale 0.95 -- enough margin above the print
- g17 `f9ea3427` fitness 8.792 Wh/km-agg — was: Abandon the maxed-battery-wedge frontal-area trick and the arm's own minimum-mass floor is kept, but this time strength comes from a genuinely full geodesic dome: both sweeps swung far past stock (42/50 vs 31.4/36) with plate scales grown to the rule-of-thumb 1.28/1.24 to keep tongue bolts anchored, and deck_gap opened to 0.038 m to starve the dominant rotor/deck-clearance failure mode outright in

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.56 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 4, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 25, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 12, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 14, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 22, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 2, "plates too thin for asa (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 3, "plates too thin for asa (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.35 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.46 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.57 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.36 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 7, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.17 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.83 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.50 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.94 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.39 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.38 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.81 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.79 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm overstressed (pla_plus)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.72 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.03 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.35 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.07 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.41 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "cold_headwind: battery pack cannot deliver demanded power": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.92 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.15 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.40 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pet_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.12 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.93 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1}

USER INSPIRATION -- the researcher asked you to draw on the ideas below when proposing designs. Translate them into the genome; do not ignore them:
# Buckminster Fuller — ephemeralization

"How much does your building weigh?" Ask it of every proposal. Fuller's
whole program was ephemeralization: doing more and more with less and
less until eventually you do everything with nothing.

- Weigh everything. The score is energy per kilometer and every gram
  is a recurring tax paid in all six scenarios. Before admiring any
  feature, ask what it weighs and what it earns.
- Tension is cheap, compression is heavy. A fat straight arm resists
  bending like a wall; ask instead where the loads actually flow.
  Deep waisting keeps material only where the bending moment lives —
  an arm can be a truss pretending to be a plate.
- The geodesic insight: strength from geometry, not from bulk. Sweep
  angles triangulate the airframe; a well-chosen pair of front/rear
  sweeps braces the disk like a dome's great circles. Find the
  geometry that lets thickness and width fall.
- Dymaxion: maximum performance per unit of input. Compute each
  elite's Wh/km per gram of frame; propose designs that maximize that
  ratio rather than minimizing either term alone.
- "You never change things by fighting the existing reality." The
  stock frame is the existing reality. Build the new model — the
  radically light one that makes heaviness obsolete — rather than
  filing grams off the old one.


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 677ff932 — Every elite is 100% carbon at floor arm mass with near-stock geometry — break the material monoculture with genuinely reinforced PET-CF (moderate width/waist/thickness matching the one successful PA12-CF template, thick decks well past the 0.8x printed-material floor) on the exact stock-adjacent geometry already proven valid, isolating whether a tougher material earns back its density penalty onceflew at 9.350 Wh/km
candidate 364861df — The 25+12+14 rotor/deck-clearance rejects in the failure histogram have kept every elite's deck_gap pinned at 0.03-0.032 and wedge below 14.5, so this design spends real standoff mass to open deck_gap to 0.040 and buys enough vertical margin to combine the never-tried pairing of a stretched 1.15 wheelbase (lower disk loading) with the true 15deg wedge ceiling, testing whether clearance rather thanflew at 8.621 Wh/km
candidate 44d60067 — Every elite's arm sits at floor width with a deep waist (a thin truss) or, when tried otherwise, a full-bulk compression wall that failed outright -- this design tests the untried middle path of a wide-flange arm (width 1.1, only lightly waisted at 0.65, thickness still at floor) carrying moderate front/rear sweep triangulation with plate scales grown per the tongue-bolt rule of thumb, letting flaflew at 9.071 Wh/km
candidate d3491e80 — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Every elite has driven arm_length_scale to a narrow 0.95-0.97 band without ever probing the unexplored short region toward the 0.75 floor; this design shrinks the wheelbase to 0.80 while keeping the earned battery-wedge trick and floor-mass arm untouched, isolating whether cutting overall structure size beats the elite's moment-arm compromise despite the disk-loading cost.
candidate 172c80c4 — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — Every prior triangulation attempt widened both sweeps symmetrically and either crushed tongue bolts or added dome bulk; this design triangulates asymmetrically instead, keeping a narrow low-drag front sweep for headwind while swinging only the rear sweep to 54 deg for tail bracing, growing plates just enough (1.22/1.18) to keep bolts seated -- an unexplored front/rear split that lets geometry carr
candidate c65565d6 — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — The maxed battery-wedge trick has never been tested paired with a shorter-than-elite wheelbase and zero compensating bulk; this design abandons battery tilt entirely and shrinks arm_length_scale to 0.88 with every other axis at its ephemeral floor, betting a genuinely smaller lighter airframe beats the wedge-dependent local optimum outright rather than refining it.

ee1b99647533

8.161 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	6.39
crosswind	4.99
gusty_light	4.51
hot_thin	3.68
storm	6.49

168c3f15a835

8.182 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	6.41
crosswind	5.00
gusty_light	4.53
hot_thin	3.69
storm	6.51

3ae2747c7d03

8.191 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.45
cold_headwind	6.41
crosswind	5.01
gusty_light	4.53
hot_thin	3.69
storm	6.51

f3c0d94b4337

8.316 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.48
cold_headwind	6.54
crosswind	5.08
gusty_light	4.60
hot_thin	3.73
storm	6.62

13f4416f23de

8.427 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.48
cold_headwind	6.68
crosswind	5.14
gusty_light	4.64
hot_thin	3.74
storm	6.72

364861df596c

8.621 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.54
cold_headwind	6.86
crosswind	5.28
gusty_light	4.74
hot_thin	3.79
storm	6.88

44d60067e154

9.071 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.59
cold_headwind	7.35
crosswind	5.44
gusty_light	4.91
hot_thin	3.85
storm	7.24

677ff9320314

9.350 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.76
cold_headwind	7.50
crosswind	5.73
gusty_light	5.11
hot_thin	4.01
storm	7.47

ede8aeb040c8

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

e4db38aa1ba6

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

5339f9abc0a7

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)

c550fae34bf3

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

1934ad17d9fa

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

a522b8bb4195

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.71 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

2946cc7755a8

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.73 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

d7d6f3236b5b

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)

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

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	3
pivot crosses (far parent)	7
random immigrants	1

mutation σ 0.107 of gene range
pivot σ 0.300 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 8.976, g1 8.976, g2 8.976, g3 8.911, g4 8.849, g5 8.804, g6 8.417, g7 8.417, g8 8.417, g9 8.417, g10 8.417, g11 8.417, g12 8.191, g13 8.191, g14 8.191, g15 8.182, g16 8.182 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 4 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 8.182 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.95, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.5, "plate_length_scale": 1.0, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.03, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.5, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.72, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.41, "crosswind": 5.0, "gusty_light": 4.53, "hot_thin": 3.69, "storm": 6.51}
fitness 8.191 Wh/km-agg, frame 84 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.95, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.5, "plate_length_scale": 1.0, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.03, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.5, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.75, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.45, "cold_headwind": 6.41, "crosswind": 5.01, "gusty_light": 4.53, "hot_thin": 3.69, "storm": 6.51}
fitness 8.248 Wh/km-agg, frame 90 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.9695, "arm_width_scale": 0.837, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 39.4029, "rear_sweep_deg": 42.5839, "plate_length_scale": 0.979, "plate_width_scale": 1.0588, "deck_gap": 0.0322, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8093, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.5, "crosswind": 5.0, "gusty_light": 4.55, "hot_thin": 3.7, "storm": 6.57}
fitness 8.250 Wh/km-agg, frame 90 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.969, "arm_width_scale": 0.8367, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 38.7749, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.0838, "plate_length_scale": 0.9828, "plate_width_scale": 1.0613, "deck_gap": 0.0322, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.806, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.52, "crosswind": 5.0, "gusty_light": 4.55, "hot_thin": 3.7, "storm": 6.57}
fitness 8.257 Wh/km-agg, frame 90 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.969, "arm_width_scale": 0.8369, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 38.7774, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.0854, "plate_length_scale": 0.9824, "plate_width_scale": 1.0615, "deck_gap": 0.0322, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.1691, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8061, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.52, "crosswind": 5.0, "gusty_light": 4.55, "hot_thin": 3.7, "storm": 6.58}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g3 `8e9a6993` fitness 9.202 Wh/km-agg — was: Geodesic-dome bracing: hold the front sweep near stock but swing the rear sweep far out to triangulate the airframe geometrically, letting arm width/thickness and deck plate thickness fall since the load path is braced by angle rather than bulk.
- g3 `c842b896` fitness 9.344 Wh/km-agg — was: Fuller's tension-is-cheap truss: stretch the arm well beyond the elite's wheelbase for lower disk interference, but keep it light by deep-waisting it into a truss rather than a plate, betting the longer moment arm pays for itself in cruise efficiency.
- g6 `3e4926e1` fitness 9.542 Wh/km-agg — was: Material-diversity probe: break out of the all-carbon monoculture with tougher PA12-CF, compensating its lower stiffness with a thicker, wider, less-waisted arm so storm-gust flex loads that killed earlier printed-material entries are absorbed rather than fought.
- g6 `50612ef7` fitness 8.804 Wh/km-agg — was: Keep the elite's proven deep-waisted, near-stock-swept geometry but trade a little battery-wedge frontal-area gain for real vertical clearance: deck_gap opened to 0.033 m and wedge trimmed to 11 deg so the tilted battery and rotor plane stop colliding, the failure mode both rejected designs shared.
- g9 `2e045ca5` fitness 8.805 Wh/km-agg — was: Fuller tension-truss arm: stretch the wheelbase to 1.15 for lower disk interference in cruise, betting the longer moment arm's cheap-tension bracing (deep waist, minimum thickness) pays for itself despite the extra reach, with stock-adjacent sweeps keeping the plate scales modest.
- g9 `2e258492` fitness 8.675 Wh/km-agg — was: Geodesic-dome bracing v2: swing the rear sweep out to 48 deg (well beyond the earlier failed 50 deg attempt) but this time grow both plate scales to 1.20 (comfortably above the ~1.12 the rule-of-thumb demands), letting triangulated geometry carry load so the arm can go to its minimum width, waist, and thickness.
- g10 `0437c36d` fitness 8.865 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite has already driven arm mass to its floor (waist 0.55, thickness 0.004) and battery tilt to its ceiling (~15deg) yet plateaued at 8.42 Wh/km-agg with only timid sweep deviation from stock — this design abandons bulk entirely and pushes both sweeps far past stock (42/50 vs stock ~31/36) into genuine geodesic triangulation, growing plates to 1.28/1.22 to keep the tongue bolts anchored and
- g10 `5c5784b9` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Every elite is an all-carbon monoculture; this design tests ephemeralization on the material axis instead, letting tougher PETG carry storm-gust loads through generous plate thickness (1.35x, well past the printed-material floor) while the arm returns to a stock-adjacent, moderately-waisted profile rather than the earlier failed PA12-CF probe's bulky wide arm, aiming to survive where that one brok
- g10 `b46801ba` fitness 9.143 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family spends its entire frontal-area budget on a maxed battery wedge that sits right against the dominant rotor-clearance failure mode (17 rejects in the histogram); this design abandons wedge tilt almost entirely (2deg) and instead cuts disk loading by stretching the wheelbase toward its 1.30 ceiling on a cheap deep-waisted tension-truss arm, with a touch more thickness than prior long
- g11 `579452c0` fitness 8.791 Wh/km-agg — was: Abandon the maxed-wedge frontal-area trick entirely (wedge -> ~1.5 deg) and instead brace the airframe geometrically with real (not timid) sweep triangulation, using the freed-up wedge budget to open deck_gap to 0.036 m and starve the dominant rotor/deck-clearance failure mode outright.
- g11 `79219798` fitness 9.081 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite clusters at wheelbase 0.9-1.04; push arm_length_scale to 1.28 (near its 1.35 ceiling, an unexplored region) to cut disk loading via moment-arm restructuring instead of plate/wedge bulk, keeping sweeps stock-adjacent and wedge moderate so the long-arm variable is isolated rather than conflated with other risky changes as in prior long-wheelbase attempts.
- g11 `f2ccb428` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Break the all-carbon monoculture with PETG for storm-rain toughness, but unlike every prior failed printed-material probe, pair it with genuinely reinforced arm geometry (width 1.0, waist 0.85, thickness 0.0065) and thick plates (1.3x) so the tip-deflection failure that killed asa/pet_cf/petg/pa12_cf attempts can't recur, while stock-adjacent sweeps and a de-maxed wedge avoid stacking a second ris
- g12 `30f271ae` fitness 8.363 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite spends its whole frontal-area budget on a maxed battery wedge while keeping sweeps timidly close to stock -- this design retreats the wedge to 6deg and instead braces the airframe with real (but bolt-safe) sweep triangulation plus thin decks, betting that geometric strength substitutes for both the wedge trick and the deck-plate bulk simultaneously.
- g12 `3958e3b9` fitness 8.485 Wh/km-agg — was: Prior isolated long-wheelbase tests (arm_length_scale 1.28-1.30) underperformed but were never paired with thin decks, so this design stretches to a moderate 1.15 with a rear-sweep brace for tip stability and drops plate_thickness_scale to 0.75, combining the moment-arm restructuring and ephemeral-deck axes that earlier probes tested only separately, while keeping the proven wedge trick intact to 
- g12 `3ae2747c` fitness 8.191 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family has held plate_thickness_scale in a tight 1.19-1.25 cluster despite never being pushed downward toward the 0.7 floor -- this pivot isolates that untested mass tax by dropping deck plates to 0.75x while keeping the proven near-stock geometry and maxed battery wedge unchanged, testing whether carbon's stiffness-to-weight ratio makes the elite's thick decks an unearned tax rather tha
- g15 `168c3f15` fitness 8.182 Wh/km-agg — was: Retest the ephemeralized-deck floor below 0.75x but with plate_length/width restored to the champion's safe 1.0x, isolating the thickness axis instead of conflating it with a shrunk plate scale that crushed the FC-stack web.
- g15 `722bb4a8` fitness 8.364 Wh/km-agg — was: Geodesic-braced long-wheelbase with the wedge trick abandoned entirely: combine a moderate wheelbase stretch (lower disk loading) with genuine sweep triangulation on both arms, reinvesting the freed frontal-area budget into deck_gap margin, to test whether pure geometric bracing can beat the wedge-dependent elite cluster -- a combination two prior probes tried separately but never together.
- g15 `9780185b` fitness 8.321 Wh/km-agg — was: Retry the rear-sweep geodesic brace but grow plate_length_scale further (1.08 to 1.15) so the arm tongue bolts stay seated on the enlarged main plate, trimming battery wedge slightly to keep the frontal-area budget balanced.
- g16 `8306b049` fitness 10.254 Wh/km-agg — was: Every printed-material probe so far died to arm tip deflection because it kept the carbon family's deep-waist tension-truss trick on a weaker material; this design abandons that trick entirely -- full-width, unwaisted, near-max-thickness PA12-CF arm plus thick decks -- to finally test whether a toughness-first, non-carbon frame is even viable, breaking the all-carbon monoculture that every elite s
- g16 `96878b1c` fitness 8.782 Wh/km-agg — was: Long-wheelbase and maxed-battery-wedge have each been tested in isolation (long arm alone underperformed at 9.08-9.14, wedge alone tops out the current elites at 8.18) but never combined -- this design stacks both frontal-area/disk-loading levers together with elite-floor arm bulk and only a modest plate-scale bump for the moderately swept tongues, staking out a genuinely unexplored corner of the 

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.56 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 4, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 25, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 12, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 12, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 22, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 2, "plates too thin for asa (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 3, "plates too thin for asa (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.35 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.46 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.57 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.36 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 7, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.17 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.83 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.50 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.94 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.39 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.38 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.81 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.79 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm overstressed (pla_plus)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.72 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.03 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.35 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.07 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.41 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "cold_headwind: battery pack cannot deliver demanded power": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.92 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 1.15 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1}

USER INSPIRATION -- the researcher asked you to draw on the ideas below when proposing designs. Translate them into the genome; do not ignore them:
# Buckminster Fuller — ephemeralization

"How much does your building weigh?" Ask it of every proposal. Fuller's
whole program was ephemeralization: doing more and more with less and
less until eventually you do everything with nothing.

- Weigh everything. The score is energy per kilometer and every gram
  is a recurring tax paid in all six scenarios. Before admiring any
  feature, ask what it weighs and what it earns.
- Tension is cheap, compression is heavy. A fat straight arm resists
  bending like a wall; ask instead where the loads actually flow.
  Deep waisting keeps material only where the bending moment lives —
  an arm can be a truss pretending to be a plate.
- The geodesic insight: strength from geometry, not from bulk. Sweep
  angles triangulate the airframe; a well-chosen pair of front/rear
  sweeps braces the disk like a dome's great circles. Find the
  geometry that lets thickness and width fall.
- Dymaxion: maximum performance per unit of input. Compute each
  elite's Wh/km per gram of frame; propose designs that maximize that
  ratio rather than minimizing either term alone.
- "You never change things by fighting the existing reality." The
  stock frame is the existing reality. Build the new model — the
  radically light one that makes heaviness obsolete — rather than
  filing grams off the old one.


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 f9ea3427 — Abandon the maxed-battery-wedge frontal-area trick and the arm's own minimum-mass floor is kept, but this time strength comes from a genuinely full geodesic dome: both sweeps swung far past stock (42/50 vs 31.4/36) with plate scales grown to the rule-of-thumb 1.28/1.24 to keep tongue bolts anchored, and deck_gap opened to 0.038 m to starve the dominant rotor/deck-clearance failure mode outright inflew at 8.792 Wh/km
candidate 60382b2b — Break the all-carbon monoculture properly this time: keep the elite's proven safe stock-adjacent geometry (33/37.5 sweep, 1.0/1.0 plates, 0.032 deck_gap) so only the material axis changes, but give PA12-CF real reinforcement -- moderate width and waist (0.95/0.85, not the carbon family's deep truss) and mid-range thickness (0.0065 m) plus plate_thickness_scale 0.95 -- enough margin above the printflew at 9.285 Wh/km
candidate 0e54d60f — Test the opposite structural philosophy from every elite's tension-truss-at-minimum-mass assumption: stretch the wheelbase to 1.25 for genuinely lower disk loading, but this time pair it with a real full-width compression wall (width 1.1, waist 1.0, thickness 0.006) instead of a deep-waisted truss, on stock-adjacent sweeps and modest wedge so the long-arm-plus-bulk trade is isolated and its Wh/km-flew at 10.724 Wh/km

168c3f15a835

8.182 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	6.41
crosswind	5.00
gusty_light	4.53
hot_thin	3.69
storm	6.51

3ae2747c7d03

8.191 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.45
cold_headwind	6.41
crosswind	5.01
gusty_light	4.53
hot_thin	3.69
storm	6.51

e20198e260a2

8.407 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.52
cold_headwind	6.62
crosswind	5.12
gusty_light	4.64
hot_thin	3.77
storm	6.69

f9ea3427ba54

8.792 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.59
cold_headwind	7.03
crosswind	5.35
gusty_light	4.81
hot_thin	3.85
storm	7.02

edf6be6f17c4

8.880 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.57
cold_headwind	7.13
crosswind	5.44
gusty_light	4.84
hot_thin	3.82
storm	7.08

60382b2b4074

9.285 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.70
cold_headwind	7.47
crosswind	5.69
gusty_light	5.06
hot_thin	3.95
storm	7.41

0e54d60fe01f

10.724 wh/km agg

calm_warm	4.08
cold_headwind	8.76
crosswind	6.50
gusty_light	5.76
hot_thin	4.36
storm	8.62

44742a2a1206

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)

98bd798cfca2

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.12 mm, stock 1.47 mm)

31e0f4cd9600

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pet_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)

ea727fbdfbf6

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.45 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

0986a5262b2a

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

00f12b205087

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.40 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

8a7c0d17a70a

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.93 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

ddea5bee841a

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

890a68ddc350

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_top 1.12 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 · 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 0.111 of gene range
pivot σ 0.300 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 8.976, g1 8.976, g2 8.976, g3 8.911, g4 8.849, g5 8.804, g6 8.417, g7 8.417, g8 8.417, g9 8.417, g10 8.417, g11 8.417, g12 8.191, g13 8.191, g14 8.191, g15 8.182 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 3 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 8.182 Wh/km-agg, frame 83 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.95, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.5, "plate_length_scale": 1.0, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.03, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.5, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.72, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.41, "crosswind": 5.0, "gusty_light": 4.53, "hot_thin": 3.69, "storm": 6.51}
fitness 8.191 Wh/km-agg, frame 84 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.95, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.5, "plate_length_scale": 1.0, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.03, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.5, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.75, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.45, "cold_headwind": 6.41, "crosswind": 5.01, "gusty_light": 4.53, "hot_thin": 3.69, "storm": 6.51}
fitness 8.250 Wh/km-agg, frame 90 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.969, "arm_width_scale": 0.8367, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 38.7749, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.0838, "plate_length_scale": 0.9828, "plate_width_scale": 1.0613, "deck_gap": 0.0322, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.806, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.52, "crosswind": 5.0, "gusty_light": 4.55, "hot_thin": 3.7, "storm": 6.57}
fitness 8.257 Wh/km-agg, frame 90 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.969, "arm_width_scale": 0.8369, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 38.7774, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.0854, "plate_length_scale": 0.9824, "plate_width_scale": 1.0615, "deck_gap": 0.0322, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.1691, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8061, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.52, "crosswind": 5.0, "gusty_light": 4.55, "hot_thin": 3.7, "storm": 6.58}
fitness 8.274 Wh/km-agg, frame 91 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.9555, "arm_width_scale": 0.7922, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 38.9218, "rear_sweep_deg": 44.2291, "plate_length_scale": 1.0347, "plate_width_scale": 1.0624, "deck_gap": 0.0356, "battery_wedge_deg": 1.7709, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8051, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.45, "cold_headwind": 6.52, "crosswind": 5.03, "gusty_light": 4.56, "hot_thin": 3.71, "storm": 6.59}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g0 `bd035022` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pet_cf)) — was: Target cold_headwind and crosswind directly: long slender tension-optimized arms for calmer disk interference plus an aggressive battery wedge to shrink frontal area, in a mid-weight PET-CF composite.
- g3 `07659e37` fitness 9.398 Wh/km-agg — was: Same lightweight PA12-CF geometry as the failed design but with deck_gap opened to 0.032 m and battery_wedge trimmed to 10 deg so the tilted battery no longer intrudes on rotor clearance.
- g3 `8e9a6993` fitness 9.202 Wh/km-agg — was: Geodesic-dome bracing: hold the front sweep near stock but swing the rear sweep far out to triangulate the airframe geometrically, letting arm width/thickness and deck plate thickness fall since the load path is braced by angle rather than bulk.
- g3 `c842b896` fitness 9.344 Wh/km-agg — was: Fuller's tension-is-cheap truss: stretch the arm well beyond the elite's wheelbase for lower disk interference, but keep it light by deep-waisting it into a truss rather than a plate, betting the longer moment arm pays for itself in cruise efficiency.
- g6 `3e4926e1` fitness 9.542 Wh/km-agg — was: Material-diversity probe: break out of the all-carbon monoculture with tougher PA12-CF, compensating its lower stiffness with a thicker, wider, less-waisted arm so storm-gust flex loads that killed earlier printed-material entries are absorbed rather than fought.
- g6 `50612ef7` fitness 8.804 Wh/km-agg — was: Keep the elite's proven deep-waisted, near-stock-swept geometry but trade a little battery-wedge frontal-area gain for real vertical clearance: deck_gap opened to 0.033 m and wedge trimmed to 11 deg so the tilted battery and rotor plane stop colliding, the failure mode both rejected designs shared.
- g9 `2e045ca5` fitness 8.805 Wh/km-agg — was: Fuller tension-truss arm: stretch the wheelbase to 1.15 for lower disk interference in cruise, betting the longer moment arm's cheap-tension bracing (deep waist, minimum thickness) pays for itself despite the extra reach, with stock-adjacent sweeps keeping the plate scales modest.
- g9 `2e258492` fitness 8.675 Wh/km-agg — was: Geodesic-dome bracing v2: swing the rear sweep out to 48 deg (well beyond the earlier failed 50 deg attempt) but this time grow both plate scales to 1.20 (comfortably above the ~1.12 the rule-of-thumb demands), letting triangulated geometry carry load so the arm can go to its minimum width, waist, and thickness.
- g10 `0437c36d` fitness 8.865 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite has already driven arm mass to its floor (waist 0.55, thickness 0.004) and battery tilt to its ceiling (~15deg) yet plateaued at 8.42 Wh/km-agg with only timid sweep deviation from stock — this design abandons bulk entirely and pushes both sweeps far past stock (42/50 vs stock ~31/36) into genuine geodesic triangulation, growing plates to 1.28/1.22 to keep the tongue bolts anchored and
- g10 `5c5784b9` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Every elite is an all-carbon monoculture; this design tests ephemeralization on the material axis instead, letting tougher PETG carry storm-gust loads through generous plate thickness (1.35x, well past the printed-material floor) while the arm returns to a stock-adjacent, moderately-waisted profile rather than the earlier failed PA12-CF probe's bulky wide arm, aiming to survive where that one brok
- g10 `b46801ba` fitness 9.143 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family spends its entire frontal-area budget on a maxed battery wedge that sits right against the dominant rotor-clearance failure mode (17 rejects in the histogram); this design abandons wedge tilt almost entirely (2deg) and instead cuts disk loading by stretching the wheelbase toward its 1.30 ceiling on a cheap deep-waisted tension-truss arm, with a touch more thickness than prior long
- g11 `579452c0` fitness 8.791 Wh/km-agg — was: Abandon the maxed-wedge frontal-area trick entirely (wedge -> ~1.5 deg) and instead brace the airframe geometrically with real (not timid) sweep triangulation, using the freed-up wedge budget to open deck_gap to 0.036 m and starve the dominant rotor/deck-clearance failure mode outright.
- g11 `79219798` fitness 9.081 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite clusters at wheelbase 0.9-1.04; push arm_length_scale to 1.28 (near its 1.35 ceiling, an unexplored region) to cut disk loading via moment-arm restructuring instead of plate/wedge bulk, keeping sweeps stock-adjacent and wedge moderate so the long-arm variable is isolated rather than conflated with other risky changes as in prior long-wheelbase attempts.
- g11 `f2ccb428` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Break the all-carbon monoculture with PETG for storm-rain toughness, but unlike every prior failed printed-material probe, pair it with genuinely reinforced arm geometry (width 1.0, waist 0.85, thickness 0.0065) and thick plates (1.3x) so the tip-deflection failure that killed asa/pet_cf/petg/pa12_cf attempts can't recur, while stock-adjacent sweeps and a de-maxed wedge avoid stacking a second ris
- g12 `30f271ae` fitness 8.363 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite spends its whole frontal-area budget on a maxed battery wedge while keeping sweeps timidly close to stock -- this design retreats the wedge to 6deg and instead braces the airframe with real (but bolt-safe) sweep triangulation plus thin decks, betting that geometric strength substitutes for both the wedge trick and the deck-plate bulk simultaneously.
- g12 `3958e3b9` fitness 8.485 Wh/km-agg — was: Prior isolated long-wheelbase tests (arm_length_scale 1.28-1.30) underperformed but were never paired with thin decks, so this design stretches to a moderate 1.15 with a rear-sweep brace for tip stability and drops plate_thickness_scale to 0.75, combining the moment-arm restructuring and ephemeral-deck axes that earlier probes tested only separately, while keeping the proven wedge trick intact to 
- g12 `3ae2747c` fitness 8.191 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family has held plate_thickness_scale in a tight 1.19-1.25 cluster despite never being pushed downward toward the 0.7 floor -- this pivot isolates that untested mass tax by dropping deck plates to 0.75x while keeping the proven near-stock geometry and maxed battery wedge unchanged, testing whether carbon's stiffness-to-weight ratio makes the elite's thick decks an unearned tax rather tha
- g15 `168c3f15` fitness 8.182 Wh/km-agg — was: Retest the ephemeralized-deck floor below 0.75x but with plate_length/width restored to the champion's safe 1.0x, isolating the thickness axis instead of conflating it with a shrunk plate scale that crushed the FC-stack web.
- g15 `722bb4a8` fitness 8.364 Wh/km-agg — was: Geodesic-braced long-wheelbase with the wedge trick abandoned entirely: combine a moderate wheelbase stretch (lower disk loading) with genuine sweep triangulation on both arms, reinvesting the freed frontal-area budget into deck_gap margin, to test whether pure geometric bracing can beat the wedge-dependent elite cluster -- a combination two prior probes tried separately but never together.
- g15 `9780185b` fitness 8.321 Wh/km-agg — was: Retry the rear-sweep geodesic brace but grow plate_length_scale further (1.08 to 1.15) so the arm tongue bolts stay seated on the enlarged main plate, trimming battery wedge slightly to keep the frontal-area budget balanced.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.56 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 4, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 24, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 11, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 12, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 22, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 2, "plates too thin for asa (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 3, "plates too thin for asa (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.35 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.46 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 5, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.57 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.36 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 6, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.17 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.83 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.50 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.94 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.39 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.38 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.81 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.79 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm overstressed (pla_plus)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.72 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.03 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.35 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.07 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.41 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "cold_headwind: battery pack cannot deliver demanded power": 1}

USER INSPIRATION -- the researcher asked you to draw on the ideas below when proposing designs. Translate them into the genome; do not ignore them:
# Buckminster Fuller — ephemeralization

"How much does your building weigh?" Ask it of every proposal. Fuller's
whole program was ephemeralization: doing more and more with less and
less until eventually you do everything with nothing.

- Weigh everything. The score is energy per kilometer and every gram
  is a recurring tax paid in all six scenarios. Before admiring any
  feature, ask what it weighs and what it earns.
- Tension is cheap, compression is heavy. A fat straight arm resists
  bending like a wall; ask instead where the loads actually flow.
  Deep waisting keeps material only where the bending moment lives —
  an arm can be a truss pretending to be a plate.
- The geodesic insight: strength from geometry, not from bulk. Sweep
  angles triangulate the airframe; a well-chosen pair of front/rear
  sweeps braces the disk like a dome's great circles. Find the
  geometry that lets thickness and width fall.
- Dymaxion: maximum performance per unit of input. Compute each
  elite's Wh/km per gram of frame; propose designs that maximize that
  ratio rather than minimizing either term alone.
- "You never change things by fighting the existing reality." The
  stock frame is the existing reality. Build the new model — the
  radically light one that makes heaviness obsolete — rather than
  filing grams off the old one.


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 8306b049 — Every printed-material probe so far died to arm tip deflection because it kept the carbon family's deep-waist tension-truss trick on a weaker material; this design abandons that trick entirely -- full-width, unwaisted, near-max-thickness PA12-CF arm plus thick decks -- to finally test whether a toughness-first, non-carbon frame is even viable, breaking the all-carbon monoculture that every elite sflew at 10.254 Wh/km
candidate 96878b1c — Long-wheelbase and maxed-battery-wedge have each been tested in isolation (long arm alone underperformed at 9.08-9.14, wedge alone tops out the current elites at 8.18) but never combined -- this design stacks both frontal-area/disk-loading levers together with elite-floor arm bulk and only a modest plate-scale bump for the moderately swept tongues, staking out a genuinely unexplored corner of the flew at 8.782 Wh/km
candidate f52d65e3 — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Every elite has already driven arm mass to its floor (waist 0.55, thickness 0.004, width ~0.75) and wheelbase has only ever been pushed longer (never shorter) despite props being fixed-size -- this pivot cuts the wheelbase itself toward its floor at safe stock sweeps, betting that 20% less arm material (a recurring tax in all six scenarios) beats the marginal disk-interference cost that longer-arm
candidate 70db0c9c — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — Keep the short-wheelbase ephemeralization pivot (arm_length_scale 0.84, minimum arm bulk, maxed wedge, thin carbon deck) that the failed design was testing, but widen both sweeps to restore the rotor-tip clearance margin that a short radius with near-stock sweep destroyed, growing plate_length/width slightly so the tongue bolts stay seated under the larger sweep.

168c3f15a835

8.182 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	6.41
crosswind	5.00
gusty_light	4.53
hot_thin	3.69
storm	6.51

3ae2747c7d03

8.191 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.45
cold_headwind	6.41
crosswind	5.01
gusty_light	4.53
hot_thin	3.69
storm	6.51

9354d3181c74

8.248 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	6.50
crosswind	5.00
gusty_light	4.55
hot_thin	3.70
storm	6.57

a0f7f82b19d8

8.296 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.51
cold_headwind	6.46
crosswind	5.09
gusty_light	4.60
hot_thin	3.76
storm	6.59

2357e4a8a875

8.345 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.48
cold_headwind	6.57
crosswind	5.10
gusty_light	4.61
hot_thin	3.73
storm	6.64

39f194f2e8c6

8.410 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.52
cold_headwind	6.62
crosswind	5.13
gusty_light	4.64
hot_thin	3.77
storm	6.70

2c0081edaa6e

8.551 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.56
cold_headwind	6.74
crosswind	5.21
gusty_light	4.71
hot_thin	3.82
storm	6.82

96878b1ca46d

8.782 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.57
cold_headwind	7.03
crosswind	5.38
gusty_light	4.81
hot_thin	3.81
storm	7.00

dea5769fcfb3

8.977 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.71
cold_headwind	7.09
crosswind	5.50
gusty_light	4.95
hot_thin	3.97
storm	7.16

8306b049970e

10.254 wh/km agg

calm_warm	4.00
cold_headwind	8.29
crosswind	6.30
gusty_light	5.56
hot_thin	4.27
storm	8.22

223bdabefa34

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.92 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

096d69012fa9

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

b8195b9218e9

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_top 1.15 mm, stock 1.75 mm)

3771ca514b69

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

b5cb33a35562

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

36659c0e191e

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.17 mm, stock 1.47 mm)

generation 15

inputs

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

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	3
crossovers (tournament parents)	7
mutants (single parent)	2
random immigrants	2

mutation σ 0.114 of gene range
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 15 · 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 8.976, g1 8.976, g2 8.976, g3 8.911, g4 8.849, g5 8.804, g6 8.417, g7 8.417, g8 8.417, g9 8.417, g10 8.417, g11 8.417, g12 8.191, g13 8.191, g14 8.191 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 2 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 8.191 Wh/km-agg, frame 84 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.95, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.5, "plate_length_scale": 1.0, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.03, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.5, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.75, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.45, "cold_headwind": 6.41, "crosswind": 5.01, "gusty_light": 4.53, "hot_thin": 3.69, "storm": 6.51}
fitness 8.250 Wh/km-agg, frame 90 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.969, "arm_width_scale": 0.8367, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 38.7749, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.0838, "plate_length_scale": 0.9828, "plate_width_scale": 1.0613, "deck_gap": 0.0322, "battery_wedge_deg": 0.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.806, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.44, "cold_headwind": 6.52, "crosswind": 5.0, "gusty_light": 4.55, "hot_thin": 3.7, "storm": 6.57}
fitness 8.274 Wh/km-agg, frame 91 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.9555, "arm_width_scale": 0.7922, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 38.9218, "rear_sweep_deg": 44.2291, "plate_length_scale": 1.0347, "plate_width_scale": 1.0624, "deck_gap": 0.0356, "battery_wedge_deg": 1.7709, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8051, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.45, "cold_headwind": 6.52, "crosswind": 5.03, "gusty_light": 4.56, "hot_thin": 3.71, "storm": 6.59}
fitness 8.284 Wh/km-agg, frame 91 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.95, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.0045, "front_sweep_deg": 33.6533, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.5, "plate_length_scale": 1.0, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.03, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.5, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.75, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.49, "cold_headwind": 6.47, "crosswind": 5.08, "gusty_light": 4.59, "hot_thin": 3.74, "storm": 6.58}
fitness 8.291 Wh/km-agg, frame 91 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.9684, "arm_width_scale": 0.794, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 38.6584, "rear_sweep_deg": 43.0892, "plate_length_scale": 1.0483, "plate_width_scale": 1.0623, "deck_gap": 0.0321, "battery_wedge_deg": 3.1135, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.8055, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.47, "cold_headwind": 6.53, "crosswind": 5.04, "gusty_light": 4.57, "hot_thin": 3.72, "storm": 6.6}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g0 `3aa66c71` INVALID (arm tip deflection (asa)) — was: Storm-hardened ASA workhorse: modest arm width and thickness plus a slightly grown plate scale give the gust-loaded worst-case scenario a stiffer, weather-tolerant airframe without ballooning mass.
- g0 `bd035022` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pet_cf)) — was: Target cold_headwind and crosswind directly: long slender tension-optimized arms for calmer disk interference plus an aggressive battery wedge to shrink frontal area, in a mid-weight PET-CF composite.
- g3 `07659e37` fitness 9.398 Wh/km-agg — was: Same lightweight PA12-CF geometry as the failed design but with deck_gap opened to 0.032 m and battery_wedge trimmed to 10 deg so the tilted battery no longer intrudes on rotor clearance.
- g3 `8e9a6993` fitness 9.202 Wh/km-agg — was: Geodesic-dome bracing: hold the front sweep near stock but swing the rear sweep far out to triangulate the airframe geometrically, letting arm width/thickness and deck plate thickness fall since the load path is braced by angle rather than bulk.
- g3 `c842b896` fitness 9.344 Wh/km-agg — was: Fuller's tension-is-cheap truss: stretch the arm well beyond the elite's wheelbase for lower disk interference, but keep it light by deep-waisting it into a truss rather than a plate, betting the longer moment arm pays for itself in cruise efficiency.
- g6 `3e4926e1` fitness 9.542 Wh/km-agg — was: Material-diversity probe: break out of the all-carbon monoculture with tougher PA12-CF, compensating its lower stiffness with a thicker, wider, less-waisted arm so storm-gust flex loads that killed earlier printed-material entries are absorbed rather than fought.
- g6 `50612ef7` fitness 8.804 Wh/km-agg — was: Keep the elite's proven deep-waisted, near-stock-swept geometry but trade a little battery-wedge frontal-area gain for real vertical clearance: deck_gap opened to 0.033 m and wedge trimmed to 11 deg so the tilted battery and rotor plane stop colliding, the failure mode both rejected designs shared.
- g9 `2e045ca5` fitness 8.805 Wh/km-agg — was: Fuller tension-truss arm: stretch the wheelbase to 1.15 for lower disk interference in cruise, betting the longer moment arm's cheap-tension bracing (deep waist, minimum thickness) pays for itself despite the extra reach, with stock-adjacent sweeps keeping the plate scales modest.
- g9 `2e258492` fitness 8.675 Wh/km-agg — was: Geodesic-dome bracing v2: swing the rear sweep out to 48 deg (well beyond the earlier failed 50 deg attempt) but this time grow both plate scales to 1.20 (comfortably above the ~1.12 the rule-of-thumb demands), letting triangulated geometry carry load so the arm can go to its minimum width, waist, and thickness.
- g10 `0437c36d` fitness 8.865 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite has already driven arm mass to its floor (waist 0.55, thickness 0.004) and battery tilt to its ceiling (~15deg) yet plateaued at 8.42 Wh/km-agg with only timid sweep deviation from stock — this design abandons bulk entirely and pushes both sweeps far past stock (42/50 vs stock ~31/36) into genuine geodesic triangulation, growing plates to 1.28/1.22 to keep the tongue bolts anchored and
- g10 `5c5784b9` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Every elite is an all-carbon monoculture; this design tests ephemeralization on the material axis instead, letting tougher PETG carry storm-gust loads through generous plate thickness (1.35x, well past the printed-material floor) while the arm returns to a stock-adjacent, moderately-waisted profile rather than the earlier failed PA12-CF probe's bulky wide arm, aiming to survive where that one brok
- g10 `b46801ba` fitness 9.143 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family spends its entire frontal-area budget on a maxed battery wedge that sits right against the dominant rotor-clearance failure mode (17 rejects in the histogram); this design abandons wedge tilt almost entirely (2deg) and instead cuts disk loading by stretching the wheelbase toward its 1.30 ceiling on a cheap deep-waisted tension-truss arm, with a touch more thickness than prior long
- g11 `579452c0` fitness 8.791 Wh/km-agg — was: Abandon the maxed-wedge frontal-area trick entirely (wedge -> ~1.5 deg) and instead brace the airframe geometrically with real (not timid) sweep triangulation, using the freed-up wedge budget to open deck_gap to 0.036 m and starve the dominant rotor/deck-clearance failure mode outright.
- g11 `79219798` fitness 9.081 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite clusters at wheelbase 0.9-1.04; push arm_length_scale to 1.28 (near its 1.35 ceiling, an unexplored region) to cut disk loading via moment-arm restructuring instead of plate/wedge bulk, keeping sweeps stock-adjacent and wedge moderate so the long-arm variable is isolated rather than conflated with other risky changes as in prior long-wheelbase attempts.
- g11 `f2ccb428` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Break the all-carbon monoculture with PETG for storm-rain toughness, but unlike every prior failed printed-material probe, pair it with genuinely reinforced arm geometry (width 1.0, waist 0.85, thickness 0.0065) and thick plates (1.3x) so the tip-deflection failure that killed asa/pet_cf/petg/pa12_cf attempts can't recur, while stock-adjacent sweeps and a de-maxed wedge avoid stacking a second ris
- g12 `30f271ae` fitness 8.363 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite spends its whole frontal-area budget on a maxed battery wedge while keeping sweeps timidly close to stock -- this design retreats the wedge to 6deg and instead braces the airframe with real (but bolt-safe) sweep triangulation plus thin decks, betting that geometric strength substitutes for both the wedge trick and the deck-plate bulk simultaneously.
- g12 `3958e3b9` fitness 8.485 Wh/km-agg — was: Prior isolated long-wheelbase tests (arm_length_scale 1.28-1.30) underperformed but were never paired with thin decks, so this design stretches to a moderate 1.15 with a rear-sweep brace for tip stability and drops plate_thickness_scale to 0.75, combining the moment-arm restructuring and ephemeral-deck axes that earlier probes tested only separately, while keeping the proven wedge trick intact to 
- g12 `3ae2747c` fitness 8.191 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family has held plate_thickness_scale in a tight 1.19-1.25 cluster despite never being pushed downward toward the 0.7 floor -- this pivot isolates that untested mass tax by dropping deck plates to 0.75x while keeping the proven near-stock geometry and maxed battery wedge unchanged, testing whether carbon's stiffness-to-weight ratio makes the elite's thick decks an unearned tax rather tha

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.56 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 4, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 24, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 11, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 9, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 20, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 2, "plates too thin for asa (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 3, "plates too thin for asa (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.35 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.46 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.57 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.36 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 6, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.17 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.83 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.50 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.94 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.39 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.38 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.81 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 0.79 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm overstressed (pla_plus)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.72 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.03 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.35 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.07 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.41 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "cold_headwind: battery pack cannot deliver demanded power": 1}

USER INSPIRATION -- the researcher asked you to draw on the ideas below when proposing designs. Translate them into the genome; do not ignore them:
# Buckminster Fuller — ephemeralization

"How much does your building weigh?" Ask it of every proposal. Fuller's
whole program was ephemeralization: doing more and more with less and
less until eventually you do everything with nothing.

- Weigh everything. The score is energy per kilometer and every gram
  is a recurring tax paid in all six scenarios. Before admiring any
  feature, ask what it weighs and what it earns.
- Tension is cheap, compression is heavy. A fat straight arm resists
  bending like a wall; ask instead where the loads actually flow.
  Deep waisting keeps material only where the bending moment lives —
  an arm can be a truss pretending to be a plate.
- The geodesic insight: strength from geometry, not from bulk. Sweep
  angles triangulate the airframe; a well-chosen pair of front/rear
  sweeps braces the disk like a dome's great circles. Find the
  geometry that lets thickness and width fall.
- Dymaxion: maximum performance per unit of input. Compute each
  elite's Wh/km per gram of frame; propose designs that maximize that
  ratio rather than minimizing either term alone.
- "You never change things by fighting the existing reality." The
  stock frame is the existing reality. Build the new model — the
  radically light one that makes heaviness obsolete — rather than
  filing grams off the old one.


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 722bb4a8 — Geodesic-braced long-wheelbase with the wedge trick abandoned entirely: combine a moderate wheelbase stretch (lower disk loading) with genuine sweep triangulation on both arms, reinvesting the freed frontal-area budget into deck_gap margin, to test whether pure geometric bracing can beat the wedge-dependent elite cluster -- a combination two prior probes tried separately but never together.flew at 8.364 Wh/km
candidate 168c3f15 — Retest the ephemeralized-deck floor below 0.75x but with plate_length/width restored to the champion's safe 1.0x, isolating the thickness axis instead of conflating it with a shrunk plate scale that crushed the FC-stack web.flew at 8.182 Wh/km
candidate 9780185b — Retry the rear-sweep geodesic brace but grow plate_length_scale further (1.08 to 1.15) so the arm tongue bolts stay seated on the enlarged main plate, trimming battery wedge slightly to keep the frontal-area budget balanced.flew at 8.321 Wh/km
candidate 936f5712 — rejected pre-flight (plate web too thin (plate_main 1.07 mm, stock 1.90 mm)) — Radical deck ephemeralization: on top of the proven best-elite arm/sweep/wedge geometry, push both plate footprint (0.95/0.95) and plate thickness (0.70, true floor) down simultaneously -- an untested combined floor-push that bets the near-stock sweeps keep the FC-stack web-crush constraint satisfied while shaving the last easy grams off the deck.
candidate fd6a3ccf — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — Asymmetric rear-triangulated dymaxion probe: keep the proven front geometry, floor-mass arm, and maxed wedge intact, but swing only the rear sweep well past the elite cluster (with the plate-scale bump the rule of thumb demands) to brace the rear disk pair geometrically against storm/crosswind gust loads, isolating the asymmetric front/rear sweep axis the DeadCat platform already implies but no el

168c3f15a835

8.182 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	6.41
crosswind	5.00
gusty_light	4.53
hot_thin	3.69
storm	6.51

3ae2747c7d03

8.191 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.45
cold_headwind	6.41
crosswind	5.01
gusty_light	4.53
hot_thin	3.69
storm	6.51

1bdb748b646e

8.250 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	6.52
crosswind	5.00
gusty_light	4.55
hot_thin	3.70
storm	6.57

f0a828516679

8.257 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	6.52
crosswind	5.00
gusty_light	4.55
hot_thin	3.70
storm	6.58

f6f70bc57a13

8.294 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.46
cold_headwind	6.54
crosswind	5.05
gusty_light	4.58
hot_thin	3.71
storm	6.61

9780185b6d33

8.321 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.49
cold_headwind	6.53
crosswind	5.10
gusty_light	4.60
hot_thin	3.74
storm	6.62

722bb4a8c6a8

8.364 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.46
cold_headwind	6.63
crosswind	5.09
gusty_light	4.60
hot_thin	3.72
storm	6.67

6e6de57351a6

8.486 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.53
cold_headwind	6.70
crosswind	5.16
gusty_light	4.68
hot_thin	3.79
storm	6.77

8ca4a669cb30

8.538 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.52
cold_headwind	6.77
crosswind	5.22
gusty_light	4.70
hot_thin	3.78
storm	6.81

6237ee135972

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

bdc26fbe1fcd

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.33
cold_headwind	6.40
crosswind	4.91
gusty_light	4.44
hot_thin	3.58
storm	6.43

3e9a6558d859

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

de258dd8ec43

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

7517d1e953fb

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

1a01728afe54

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

66b9e14e363b

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

generation 14

3ae2747c7d03

8.191 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.45
cold_headwind	6.41
crosswind	5.01
gusty_light	4.53
hot_thin	3.69
storm	6.51

1bdb748b646e

8.250 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.44
cold_headwind	6.52
crosswind	5.00
gusty_light	4.55
hot_thin	3.70
storm	6.57

ea2f17d42f86

8.274 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.45
cold_headwind	6.52
crosswind	5.03
gusty_light	4.56
hot_thin	3.71
storm	6.59

307849f1f4ef

8.284 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.49
cold_headwind	6.47
crosswind	5.08
gusty_light	4.59
hot_thin	3.74
storm	6.58

f1e5b0a6016e

8.291 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.47
cold_headwind	6.53
crosswind	5.04
gusty_light	4.57
hot_thin	3.72
storm	6.60

27a59c891173

8.366 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.48
cold_headwind	6.63
crosswind	5.07
gusty_light	4.61
hot_thin	3.73
storm	6.67

3a1600ed82df

8.417 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.49
cold_headwind	6.67
crosswind	5.13
gusty_light	4.64
hot_thin	3.74
storm	6.71

9b103455a019

8.428 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.48
cold_headwind	6.70
crosswind	5.12
gusty_light	4.63
hot_thin	3.73
storm	6.72

4e158b076b86

8.488 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.51
cold_headwind	6.74
crosswind	5.17
gusty_light	4.67
hot_thin	3.76
storm	6.77

7e4959f77e58

8.626 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.53
cold_headwind	6.90
crosswind	5.23
gusty_light	4.72
hot_thin	3.78
storm	6.89

171ca1034ea0

8.716 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.54
cold_headwind	6.99
crosswind	5.29
gusty_light	4.77
hot_thin	3.80
storm	6.96

1018824a40a7

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

ea1fa7556aa2

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

10ff01288727

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

09284be32378

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

c71d16c7cb04

∞ wh/km agg

cold_headwind: battery pack cannot deliver demanded power

calm_warm	4.29
cold_headwind	fail
crosswind	6.83
gusty_light	6.01
hot_thin	4.58
storm	9.00

generation 13

3ae2747c7d03

8.191 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.45
cold_headwind	6.41
crosswind	5.01
gusty_light	4.53
hot_thin	3.69
storm	6.51

f1e5b0a6016e

8.291 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.47
cold_headwind	6.53
crosswind	5.04
gusty_light	4.57
hot_thin	3.72
storm	6.60

5b277a1f090e

8.328 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.50
cold_headwind	6.54
crosswind	5.07
gusty_light	4.60
hot_thin	3.75
storm	6.63

30f271aea977

8.363 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.48
cold_headwind	6.61
crosswind	5.09
gusty_light	4.61
hot_thin	3.73
storm	6.66

7419216b71e9

8.367 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.48
cold_headwind	6.62
crosswind	5.09
gusty_light	4.61
hot_thin	3.73
storm	6.67

b142234d3907

8.426 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.49
cold_headwind	6.68
crosswind	5.12
gusty_light	4.64
hot_thin	3.74
storm	6.72

d420a8640abd

8.518 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.59
cold_headwind	6.66
crosswind	5.21
gusty_light	4.71
hot_thin	3.84
storm	6.77

e9ace3fd26f5

8.824 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.59
cold_headwind	7.07
crosswind	5.36
gusty_light	4.83
hot_thin	3.85
storm	7.05

cce085805c37

8.911 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.64
cold_headwind	7.12
crosswind	5.43
gusty_light	4.88
hot_thin	3.90
storm	7.12

241dc3920690

9.425 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.90
cold_headwind	7.43
crosswind	5.79
gusty_light	5.18
hot_thin	4.19
storm	7.52

4eb31fc025e7

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

20216f045fc3

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

5dae7ad20a35

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

ad4f7260c83c

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

8da88c8a1c92

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

133bbbef5c22

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

generation 12

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
mutants (single parent)	1
pivot crosses (far parent)	7

mutation σ 0.125 of gene range
pivot σ 0.300 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 12 · 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 8.976, g1 8.976, g2 8.976, g3 8.911, g4 8.849, g5 8.804, g6 8.417, g7 8.417, g8 8.417, g9 8.417, g10 8.417, g11 8.417 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 5 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 8.417 Wh/km-agg, frame 103 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.9082, "arm_width_scale": 0.8312, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5528, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 35.2769, "rear_sweep_deg": 38.8658, "plate_length_scale": 1.1478, "plate_width_scale": 0.9758, "deck_gap": 0.0287, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.7202, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.1889, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.56, "cold_headwind": 6.57, "crosswind": 5.16, "gusty_light": 4.66, "hot_thin": 3.81, "storm": 6.69}
fitness 8.510 Wh/km-agg, frame 103 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.0397, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 34.3488, "rear_sweep_deg": 41.7259, "plate_length_scale": 1.0276, "plate_width_scale": 0.9996, "deck_gap": 0.0293, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.766, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.2461, "material": 0.007} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.57, "cold_headwind": 6.67, "crosswind": 5.2, "gusty_light": 4.7, "hot_thin": 3.83, "storm": 6.77}
fitness 8.646 Wh/km-agg, frame 109 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.0427, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 36.7722, "rear_sweep_deg": 38.8134, "plate_length_scale": 1.0794, "plate_width_scale": 0.9968, "deck_gap": 0.0327, "battery_wedge_deg": 15.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.2399, "material": 0.0547} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.63, "cold_headwind": 6.78, "crosswind": 5.31, "gusty_light": 4.78, "hot_thin": 3.88, "storm": 6.88}
fitness 8.657 Wh/km-agg, frame 109 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.0397, "arm_width_scale": 0.8709, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 34.3629, "rear_sweep_deg": 39.8998, "plate_length_scale": 1.0941, "plate_width_scale": 1.0017, "deck_gap": 0.0293, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.7784, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.2493, "material": 0.007} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.61, "cold_headwind": 6.81, "crosswind": 5.3, "gusty_light": 4.78, "hot_thin": 3.87, "storm": 6.89}
fitness 8.675 Wh/km-agg, frame 116 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.95, "arm_width_scale": 0.78, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 48.0, "plate_length_scale": 1.2, "plate_width_scale": 1.2, "deck_gap": 0.03, "battery_wedge_deg": 12.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.2, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.66, "cold_headwind": 6.79, "crosswind": 5.32, "gusty_light": 4.79, "hot_thin": 3.91, "storm": 6.89}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g0 `3aa66c71` INVALID (arm tip deflection (asa)) — was: Storm-hardened ASA workhorse: modest arm width and thickness plus a slightly grown plate scale give the gust-loaded worst-case scenario a stiffer, weather-tolerant airframe without ballooning mass.
- g0 `bd035022` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pet_cf)) — was: Target cold_headwind and crosswind directly: long slender tension-optimized arms for calmer disk interference plus an aggressive battery wedge to shrink frontal area, in a mid-weight PET-CF composite.
- g3 `07659e37` fitness 9.398 Wh/km-agg — was: Same lightweight PA12-CF geometry as the failed design but with deck_gap opened to 0.032 m and battery_wedge trimmed to 10 deg so the tilted battery no longer intrudes on rotor clearance.
- g3 `8e9a6993` fitness 9.202 Wh/km-agg — was: Geodesic-dome bracing: hold the front sweep near stock but swing the rear sweep far out to triangulate the airframe geometrically, letting arm width/thickness and deck plate thickness fall since the load path is braced by angle rather than bulk.
- g3 `c842b896` fitness 9.344 Wh/km-agg — was: Fuller's tension-is-cheap truss: stretch the arm well beyond the elite's wheelbase for lower disk interference, but keep it light by deep-waisting it into a truss rather than a plate, betting the longer moment arm pays for itself in cruise efficiency.
- g6 `3e4926e1` fitness 9.542 Wh/km-agg — was: Material-diversity probe: break out of the all-carbon monoculture with tougher PA12-CF, compensating its lower stiffness with a thicker, wider, less-waisted arm so storm-gust flex loads that killed earlier printed-material entries are absorbed rather than fought.
- g6 `50612ef7` fitness 8.804 Wh/km-agg — was: Keep the elite's proven deep-waisted, near-stock-swept geometry but trade a little battery-wedge frontal-area gain for real vertical clearance: deck_gap opened to 0.033 m and wedge trimmed to 11 deg so the tilted battery and rotor plane stop colliding, the failure mode both rejected designs shared.
- g9 `2e045ca5` fitness 8.805 Wh/km-agg — was: Fuller tension-truss arm: stretch the wheelbase to 1.15 for lower disk interference in cruise, betting the longer moment arm's cheap-tension bracing (deep waist, minimum thickness) pays for itself despite the extra reach, with stock-adjacent sweeps keeping the plate scales modest.
- g9 `2e258492` fitness 8.675 Wh/km-agg — was: Geodesic-dome bracing v2: swing the rear sweep out to 48 deg (well beyond the earlier failed 50 deg attempt) but this time grow both plate scales to 1.20 (comfortably above the ~1.12 the rule-of-thumb demands), letting triangulated geometry carry load so the arm can go to its minimum width, waist, and thickness.
- g10 `0437c36d` fitness 8.865 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite has already driven arm mass to its floor (waist 0.55, thickness 0.004) and battery tilt to its ceiling (~15deg) yet plateaued at 8.42 Wh/km-agg with only timid sweep deviation from stock — this design abandons bulk entirely and pushes both sweeps far past stock (42/50 vs stock ~31/36) into genuine geodesic triangulation, growing plates to 1.28/1.22 to keep the tongue bolts anchored and
- g10 `5c5784b9` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Every elite is an all-carbon monoculture; this design tests ephemeralization on the material axis instead, letting tougher PETG carry storm-gust loads through generous plate thickness (1.35x, well past the printed-material floor) while the arm returns to a stock-adjacent, moderately-waisted profile rather than the earlier failed PA12-CF probe's bulky wide arm, aiming to survive where that one brok
- g10 `b46801ba` fitness 9.143 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family spends its entire frontal-area budget on a maxed battery wedge that sits right against the dominant rotor-clearance failure mode (17 rejects in the histogram); this design abandons wedge tilt almost entirely (2deg) and instead cuts disk loading by stretching the wheelbase toward its 1.30 ceiling on a cheap deep-waisted tension-truss arm, with a touch more thickness than prior long
- g11 `579452c0` fitness 8.791 Wh/km-agg — was: Abandon the maxed-wedge frontal-area trick entirely (wedge -> ~1.5 deg) and instead brace the airframe geometrically with real (not timid) sweep triangulation, using the freed-up wedge budget to open deck_gap to 0.036 m and starve the dominant rotor/deck-clearance failure mode outright.
- g11 `79219798` fitness 9.081 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite clusters at wheelbase 0.9-1.04; push arm_length_scale to 1.28 (near its 1.35 ceiling, an unexplored region) to cut disk loading via moment-arm restructuring instead of plate/wedge bulk, keeping sweeps stock-adjacent and wedge moderate so the long-arm variable is isolated rather than conflated with other risky changes as in prior long-wheelbase attempts.
- g11 `f2ccb428` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Break the all-carbon monoculture with PETG for storm-rain toughness, but unlike every prior failed printed-material probe, pair it with genuinely reinforced arm geometry (width 1.0, waist 0.85, thickness 0.0065) and thick plates (1.3x) so the tip-deflection failure that killed asa/pet_cf/petg/pa12_cf attempts can't recur, while stock-adjacent sweeps and a de-maxed wedge avoid stacking a second ris

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.56 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 4, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 22, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 11, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 6, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 12, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 2, "plates too thin for asa (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 3, "plates too thin for asa (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.35 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.46 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 4, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.57 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.36 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 6, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.17 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.83 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.50 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.94 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.39 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.38 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.81 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 0.79 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm overstressed (pla_plus)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.72 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.03 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.35 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.07 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.41 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1}

USER INSPIRATION -- the researcher asked you to draw on the ideas below when proposing designs. Translate them into the genome; do not ignore them:
# Buckminster Fuller — ephemeralization

"How much does your building weigh?" Ask it of every proposal. Fuller's
whole program was ephemeralization: doing more and more with less and
less until eventually you do everything with nothing.

- Weigh everything. The score is energy per kilometer and every gram
  is a recurring tax paid in all six scenarios. Before admiring any
  feature, ask what it weighs and what it earns.
- Tension is cheap, compression is heavy. A fat straight arm resists
  bending like a wall; ask instead where the loads actually flow.
  Deep waisting keeps material only where the bending moment lives —
  an arm can be a truss pretending to be a plate.
- The geodesic insight: strength from geometry, not from bulk. Sweep
  angles triangulate the airframe; a well-chosen pair of front/rear
  sweeps braces the disk like a dome's great circles. Find the
  geometry that lets thickness and width fall.
- Dymaxion: maximum performance per unit of input. Compute each
  elite's Wh/km per gram of frame; propose designs that maximize that
  ratio rather than minimizing either term alone.
- "You never change things by fighting the existing reality." The
  stock frame is the existing reality. Build the new model — the
  radically light one that makes heaviness obsolete — rather than
  filing grams off the old one.


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 3ae2747c — The elite family has held plate_thickness_scale in a tight 1.19-1.25 cluster despite never being pushed downward toward the 0.7 floor -- this pivot isolates that untested mass tax by dropping deck plates to 0.75x while keeping the proven near-stock geometry and maxed battery wedge unchanged, testing whether carbon's stiffness-to-weight ratio makes the elite's thick decks an unearned tax rather thaflew at 8.191 Wh/km
candidate 30f271ae — Every elite spends its whole frontal-area budget on a maxed battery wedge while keeping sweeps timidly close to stock -- this design retreats the wedge to 6deg and instead braces the airframe with real (but bolt-safe) sweep triangulation plus thin decks, betting that geometric strength substitutes for both the wedge trick and the deck-plate bulk simultaneously.flew at 8.363 Wh/km
candidate 3958e3b9 — Prior isolated long-wheelbase tests (arm_length_scale 1.28-1.30) underperformed but were never paired with thin decks, so this design stretches to a moderate 1.15 with a rear-sweep brace for tip stability and drops plate_thickness_scale to 0.75, combining the moment-arm restructuring and ephemeral-deck axes that earlier probes tested only separately, while keeping the proven wedge trick intact to flew at 8.485 Wh/km
candidate 9492210a — rejected pre-flight (plate web too thin (plate_main 1.07 mm, stock 1.90 mm)) — Every elite already sits at the arm's tension-truss floor (waist 0.55, thickness 0.004) and the battery wedge's frontal-area ceiling (~15deg) yet the deck plate has never been pushed below stock scale -- this design keeps arm and sweep stock-neutral but drives plate_length/width_scale down to the 0.95 web-crush floor and drops wedge to near-zero, abandoning the maxed-wedge/clearance trade that cau
candidate 31a18097 — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Every attempted design (elite or pivot) clusters at wheelbase 0.9-1.30, leaving the short end of arm_length_scale (0.75-0.85) completely unexplored -- this design pushes toward that floor at 0.78 so motors sit closer together for a smaller crosswind silhouette and shorter, lighter arms, keeping arm bulk at its tension-truss minimum since a short lever arm carries far less bending moment and needs
candidate 2f0f8d19 — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — Prior geodesic-dome pivots swept the airframe wide but always left the battery wedge near its ceiling, stacking the same rotor/deck clearance risk that dominates the reject histogram onto the plate-web risk of a big sweep change -- this design commits fully to Fuller's dome logic (rear sweep pushed to 50deg, front to 40deg, plate scales grown per the tongue-bolt rule of thumb) while dropping wedge

3ae2747c7d03

8.191 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.45
cold_headwind	6.41
crosswind	5.01
gusty_light	4.53
hot_thin	3.69
storm	6.51

30f271aea977

8.363 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.48
cold_headwind	6.61
crosswind	5.09
gusty_light	4.61
hot_thin	3.73
storm	6.66

b3e74ae3f068

8.417 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.56
cold_headwind	6.57
crosswind	5.16
gusty_light	4.66
hot_thin	3.81
storm	6.69

3958e3b91ccb

8.485 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.51
cold_headwind	6.74
crosswind	5.19
gusty_light	4.67
hot_thin	3.75
storm	6.76

2a2f347652ad

8.510 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.57
cold_headwind	6.67
crosswind	5.20
gusty_light	4.70
hot_thin	3.83
storm	6.77

b2e01b967b18

8.668 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.57
cold_headwind	6.90
crosswind	5.28
gusty_light	4.76
hot_thin	3.82
storm	6.92

3d80e9d0036f

8.790 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.65
cold_headwind	6.95
crosswind	5.36
gusty_light	4.84
hot_thin	3.92
storm	7.01

738ae3748e54

9.011 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.61
cold_headwind	7.26
crosswind	5.46
gusty_light	4.90
hot_thin	3.87
storm	7.19

9e7b9ad77ed3

9.029 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.78
cold_headwind	7.06
crosswind	5.58
gusty_light	4.99
hot_thin	4.04
storm	7.18

7691268668e6

9.228 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.88
cold_headwind	7.21
crosswind	5.67
gusty_light	5.09
hot_thin	4.15
storm	7.34

c0ac904c9c01

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

718483f5e2a1

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

36cd8bc37eaa

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

6b01abd7d0ec

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.03 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

594f14153118

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

4e1fec7f811d

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

generation 11

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
pivot crosses (far parent)	7
random immigrants	1

mutation σ 0.129 of gene range
pivot σ 0.300 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 11 · 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 8.976, g1 8.976, g2 8.976, g3 8.911, g4 8.849, g5 8.804, g6 8.417, g7 8.417, g8 8.417, g9 8.417, g10 8.417 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 4 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 8.417 Wh/km-agg, frame 103 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.9082, "arm_width_scale": 0.8312, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5528, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 35.2769, "rear_sweep_deg": 38.8658, "plate_length_scale": 1.1478, "plate_width_scale": 0.9758, "deck_gap": 0.0287, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.7202, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.1889, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.56, "cold_headwind": 6.57, "crosswind": 5.16, "gusty_light": 4.66, "hot_thin": 3.81, "storm": 6.69}
fitness 8.510 Wh/km-agg, frame 103 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.0397, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 34.3488, "rear_sweep_deg": 41.7259, "plate_length_scale": 1.0276, "plate_width_scale": 0.9996, "deck_gap": 0.0293, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.766, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.2461, "material": 0.007} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.57, "cold_headwind": 6.67, "crosswind": 5.2, "gusty_light": 4.7, "hot_thin": 3.83, "storm": 6.77}
fitness 8.646 Wh/km-agg, frame 109 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.0427, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 36.7722, "rear_sweep_deg": 38.8134, "plate_length_scale": 1.0794, "plate_width_scale": 0.9968, "deck_gap": 0.0327, "battery_wedge_deg": 15.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.2399, "material": 0.0547} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.63, "cold_headwind": 6.78, "crosswind": 5.31, "gusty_light": 4.78, "hot_thin": 3.88, "storm": 6.88}
fitness 8.657 Wh/km-agg, frame 109 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.0397, "arm_width_scale": 0.8709, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 34.3629, "rear_sweep_deg": 39.8998, "plate_length_scale": 1.0941, "plate_width_scale": 1.0017, "deck_gap": 0.0293, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.7784, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.2493, "material": 0.007} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.61, "cold_headwind": 6.81, "crosswind": 5.3, "gusty_light": 4.78, "hot_thin": 3.87, "storm": 6.89}
fitness 8.675 Wh/km-agg, frame 116 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.95, "arm_width_scale": 0.78, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 48.0, "plate_length_scale": 1.2, "plate_width_scale": 1.2, "deck_gap": 0.03, "battery_wedge_deg": 12.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.2, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.66, "cold_headwind": 6.79, "crosswind": 5.32, "gusty_light": 4.79, "hot_thin": 3.91, "storm": 6.89}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g0 `3aa66c71` INVALID (arm tip deflection (asa)) — was: Storm-hardened ASA workhorse: modest arm width and thickness plus a slightly grown plate scale give the gust-loaded worst-case scenario a stiffer, weather-tolerant airframe without ballooning mass.
- g0 `bd035022` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pet_cf)) — was: Target cold_headwind and crosswind directly: long slender tension-optimized arms for calmer disk interference plus an aggressive battery wedge to shrink frontal area, in a mid-weight PET-CF composite.
- g3 `07659e37` fitness 9.398 Wh/km-agg — was: Same lightweight PA12-CF geometry as the failed design but with deck_gap opened to 0.032 m and battery_wedge trimmed to 10 deg so the tilted battery no longer intrudes on rotor clearance.
- g3 `8e9a6993` fitness 9.202 Wh/km-agg — was: Geodesic-dome bracing: hold the front sweep near stock but swing the rear sweep far out to triangulate the airframe geometrically, letting arm width/thickness and deck plate thickness fall since the load path is braced by angle rather than bulk.
- g3 `c842b896` fitness 9.344 Wh/km-agg — was: Fuller's tension-is-cheap truss: stretch the arm well beyond the elite's wheelbase for lower disk interference, but keep it light by deep-waisting it into a truss rather than a plate, betting the longer moment arm pays for itself in cruise efficiency.
- g6 `3e4926e1` fitness 9.542 Wh/km-agg — was: Material-diversity probe: break out of the all-carbon monoculture with tougher PA12-CF, compensating its lower stiffness with a thicker, wider, less-waisted arm so storm-gust flex loads that killed earlier printed-material entries are absorbed rather than fought.
- g6 `50612ef7` fitness 8.804 Wh/km-agg — was: Keep the elite's proven deep-waisted, near-stock-swept geometry but trade a little battery-wedge frontal-area gain for real vertical clearance: deck_gap opened to 0.033 m and wedge trimmed to 11 deg so the tilted battery and rotor plane stop colliding, the failure mode both rejected designs shared.
- g9 `2e045ca5` fitness 8.805 Wh/km-agg — was: Fuller tension-truss arm: stretch the wheelbase to 1.15 for lower disk interference in cruise, betting the longer moment arm's cheap-tension bracing (deep waist, minimum thickness) pays for itself despite the extra reach, with stock-adjacent sweeps keeping the plate scales modest.
- g9 `2e258492` fitness 8.675 Wh/km-agg — was: Geodesic-dome bracing v2: swing the rear sweep out to 48 deg (well beyond the earlier failed 50 deg attempt) but this time grow both plate scales to 1.20 (comfortably above the ~1.12 the rule-of-thumb demands), letting triangulated geometry carry load so the arm can go to its minimum width, waist, and thickness.
- g10 `0437c36d` fitness 8.865 Wh/km-agg — was: Every elite has already driven arm mass to its floor (waist 0.55, thickness 0.004) and battery tilt to its ceiling (~15deg) yet plateaued at 8.42 Wh/km-agg with only timid sweep deviation from stock — this design abandons bulk entirely and pushes both sweeps far past stock (42/50 vs stock ~31/36) into genuine geodesic triangulation, growing plates to 1.28/1.22 to keep the tongue bolts anchored and
- g10 `5c5784b9` INVALID (arm tip deflection (petg)) — was: Every elite is an all-carbon monoculture; this design tests ephemeralization on the material axis instead, letting tougher PETG carry storm-gust loads through generous plate thickness (1.35x, well past the printed-material floor) while the arm returns to a stock-adjacent, moderately-waisted profile rather than the earlier failed PA12-CF probe's bulky wide arm, aiming to survive where that one brok
- g10 `b46801ba` fitness 9.143 Wh/km-agg — was: The elite family spends its entire frontal-area budget on a maxed battery wedge that sits right against the dominant rotor-clearance failure mode (17 rejects in the histogram); this design abandons wedge tilt almost entirely (2deg) and instead cuts disk loading by stretching the wheelbase toward its 1.30 ceiling on a cheap deep-waisted tension-truss arm, with a touch more thickness than prior long

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.56 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 4, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 19, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 11, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 6, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 12, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 2, "plates too thin for asa (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 3, "plates too thin for asa (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.35 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.46 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.57 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.36 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 6, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.17 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.83 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.50 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.94 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.39 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.38 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.81 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 0.79 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm overstressed (pla_plus)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.72 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.03 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.35 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.07 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1}

USER INSPIRATION -- the researcher asked you to draw on the ideas below when proposing designs. Translate them into the genome; do not ignore them:
# Buckminster Fuller — ephemeralization

"How much does your building weigh?" Ask it of every proposal. Fuller's
whole program was ephemeralization: doing more and more with less and
less until eventually you do everything with nothing.

- Weigh everything. The score is energy per kilometer and every gram
  is a recurring tax paid in all six scenarios. Before admiring any
  feature, ask what it weighs and what it earns.
- Tension is cheap, compression is heavy. A fat straight arm resists
  bending like a wall; ask instead where the loads actually flow.
  Deep waisting keeps material only where the bending moment lives —
  an arm can be a truss pretending to be a plate.
- The geodesic insight: strength from geometry, not from bulk. Sweep
  angles triangulate the airframe; a well-chosen pair of front/rear
  sweeps braces the disk like a dome's great circles. Find the
  geometry that lets thickness and width fall.
- Dymaxion: maximum performance per unit of input. Compute each
  elite's Wh/km per gram of frame; propose designs that maximize that
  ratio rather than minimizing either term alone.
- "You never change things by fighting the existing reality." The
  stock frame is the existing reality. Build the new model — the
  radically light one that makes heaviness obsolete — rather than
  filing grams off the old one.


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 579452c0 — Abandon the maxed-wedge frontal-area trick entirely (wedge -> ~1.5 deg) and instead brace the airframe geometrically with real (not timid) sweep triangulation, using the freed-up wedge budget to open deck_gap to 0.036 m and starve the dominant rotor/deck-clearance failure mode outright.flew at 8.791 Wh/km
candidate f2ccb428 — Break the all-carbon monoculture with PETG for storm-rain toughness, but unlike every prior failed printed-material probe, pair it with genuinely reinforced arm geometry (width 1.0, waist 0.85, thickness 0.0065) and thick plates (1.3x) so the tip-deflection failure that killed asa/pet_cf/petg/pa12_cf attempts can't recur, while stock-adjacent sweeps and a de-maxed wedge avoid stacking a second risinvalid — arm tip deflection (petg)
candidate 79219798 — Every elite clusters at wheelbase 0.9-1.04; push arm_length_scale to 1.28 (near its 1.35 ceiling, an unexplored region) to cut disk loading via moment-arm restructuring instead of plate/wedge bulk, keeping sweeps stock-adjacent and wedge moderate so the long-arm variable is isolated rather than conflated with other risky changes as in prior long-wheelbase attempts.flew at 9.081 Wh/km

b3e74ae3f068

8.417 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.56
cold_headwind	6.57
crosswind	5.16
gusty_light	4.66
hot_thin	3.81
storm	6.69

2a2f347652ad

8.510 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.57
cold_headwind	6.67
crosswind	5.20
gusty_light	4.70
hot_thin	3.83
storm	6.77

579452c0e6ee

8.791 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.61
cold_headwind	7.00
crosswind	5.37
gusty_light	4.83
hot_thin	3.88
storm	7.02

5c71e4beda4d

8.939 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.74
cold_headwind	7.00
crosswind	5.51
gusty_light	4.94
hot_thin	4.01
storm	7.11

0b03cdca8b73

8.969 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.76
cold_headwind	7.02
crosswind	5.51
gusty_light	4.95
hot_thin	4.02
storm	7.14

76c399d0f0de

8.994 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.71
cold_headwind	7.14
crosswind	5.52
gusty_light	4.95
hot_thin	3.97
storm	7.17

7921979831e3

9.081 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.66
cold_headwind	7.29
crosswind	5.53
gusty_light	4.96
hot_thin	3.92
storm	7.25

3a06a2f6cb98

9.458 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.96
cold_headwind	7.39
crosswind	5.86
gusty_light	5.22
hot_thin	4.22
storm	7.52

4f68665f4197

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.41 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

dafb9c7d75ca

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

ef8f3afaf68d

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.45
cold_headwind	6.64
crosswind	5.12
gusty_light	4.60
hot_thin	3.69
storm	6.65

aec598cc9d01

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

ef48cc6c147b

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

3605f5d8d47e

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.07 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

123e7af302e7

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

f2ccb4284ad3

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (petg)

calm_warm	3.81
cold_headwind	7.61
crosswind	5.82
gusty_light	5.18
hot_thin	4.07
storm	7.58

generation 10

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)	2
mutants (single parent)	1
pivot crosses (far parent)	7
random immigrants	1

mutation σ 0.133 of gene range
pivot σ 0.300 on 50% of non-elite slots
crossover 90% · immigrants 10%
tournament k=3 · elitism 2 · patience 3 gen

✦ claude designer · generation 10 · 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 8.976, g1 8.976, g2 8.976, g3 8.911, g4 8.849, g5 8.804, g6 8.417, g7 8.417, g8 8.417, g9 8.417 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 3 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 8.417 Wh/km-agg, frame 103 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.9082, "arm_width_scale": 0.8312, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5528, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 35.2769, "rear_sweep_deg": 38.8658, "plate_length_scale": 1.1478, "plate_width_scale": 0.9758, "deck_gap": 0.0287, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.7202, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.1889, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.56, "cold_headwind": 6.57, "crosswind": 5.16, "gusty_light": 4.66, "hot_thin": 3.81, "storm": 6.69}
fitness 8.646 Wh/km-agg, frame 109 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.0427, "arm_width_scale": 0.75, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.0042, "front_sweep_deg": 36.7722, "rear_sweep_deg": 38.8134, "plate_length_scale": 1.0794, "plate_width_scale": 0.9968, "deck_gap": 0.0327, "battery_wedge_deg": 15.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.2399, "material": 0.0547} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.63, "cold_headwind": 6.78, "crosswind": 5.31, "gusty_light": 4.78, "hot_thin": 3.88, "storm": 6.88}
fitness 8.657 Wh/km-agg, frame 109 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.0397, "arm_width_scale": 0.8709, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 34.3629, "rear_sweep_deg": 39.8998, "plate_length_scale": 1.0941, "plate_width_scale": 1.0017, "deck_gap": 0.0293, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.7784, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.2493, "material": 0.007} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.61, "cold_headwind": 6.81, "crosswind": 5.3, "gusty_light": 4.78, "hot_thin": 3.87, "storm": 6.89}
fitness 8.675 Wh/km-agg, frame 116 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.95, "arm_width_scale": 0.78, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.0, "rear_sweep_deg": 48.0, "plate_length_scale": 1.2, "plate_width_scale": 1.2, "deck_gap": 0.03, "battery_wedge_deg": 12.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.2, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.66, "cold_headwind": 6.79, "crosswind": 5.32, "gusty_light": 4.79, "hot_thin": 3.91, "storm": 6.89}
fitness 8.715 Wh/km-agg, frame 110 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.0397, "arm_width_scale": 0.9034, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 34.7636, "rear_sweep_deg": 39.8998, "plate_length_scale": 1.0941, "plate_width_scale": 1.0115, "deck_gap": 0.03, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.7784, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.2493, "material": 0.007} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.62, "cold_headwind": 6.88, "crosswind": 5.34, "gusty_light": 4.8, "hot_thin": 3.88, "storm": 6.94}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g0 `3aa66c71` INVALID (arm tip deflection (asa)) — was: Storm-hardened ASA workhorse: modest arm width and thickness plus a slightly grown plate scale give the gust-loaded worst-case scenario a stiffer, weather-tolerant airframe without ballooning mass.
- g0 `bd035022` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pet_cf)) — was: Target cold_headwind and crosswind directly: long slender tension-optimized arms for calmer disk interference plus an aggressive battery wedge to shrink frontal area, in a mid-weight PET-CF composite.
- g3 `07659e37` fitness 9.398 Wh/km-agg — was: Same lightweight PA12-CF geometry as the failed design but with deck_gap opened to 0.032 m and battery_wedge trimmed to 10 deg so the tilted battery no longer intrudes on rotor clearance.
- g3 `8e9a6993` fitness 9.202 Wh/km-agg — was: Geodesic-dome bracing: hold the front sweep near stock but swing the rear sweep far out to triangulate the airframe geometrically, letting arm width/thickness and deck plate thickness fall since the load path is braced by angle rather than bulk.
- g3 `c842b896` fitness 9.344 Wh/km-agg — was: Fuller's tension-is-cheap truss: stretch the arm well beyond the elite's wheelbase for lower disk interference, but keep it light by deep-waisting it into a truss rather than a plate, betting the longer moment arm pays for itself in cruise efficiency.
- g6 `3e4926e1` fitness 9.542 Wh/km-agg — was: Material-diversity probe: break out of the all-carbon monoculture with tougher PA12-CF, compensating its lower stiffness with a thicker, wider, less-waisted arm so storm-gust flex loads that killed earlier printed-material entries are absorbed rather than fought.
- g6 `50612ef7` fitness 8.804 Wh/km-agg — was: Keep the elite's proven deep-waisted, near-stock-swept geometry but trade a little battery-wedge frontal-area gain for real vertical clearance: deck_gap opened to 0.033 m and wedge trimmed to 11 deg so the tilted battery and rotor plane stop colliding, the failure mode both rejected designs shared.
- g9 `2e045ca5` fitness 8.805 Wh/km-agg — was: Fuller tension-truss arm: stretch the wheelbase to 1.15 for lower disk interference in cruise, betting the longer moment arm's cheap-tension bracing (deep waist, minimum thickness) pays for itself despite the extra reach, with stock-adjacent sweeps keeping the plate scales modest.
- g9 `2e258492` fitness 8.675 Wh/km-agg — was: Geodesic-dome bracing v2: swing the rear sweep out to 48 deg (well beyond the earlier failed 50 deg attempt) but this time grow both plate scales to 1.20 (comfortably above the ~1.12 the rule-of-thumb demands), letting triangulated geometry carry load so the arm can go to its minimum width, waist, and thickness.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.56 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 4, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 17, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 11, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 6, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 10, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 2, "plates too thin for asa (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 3, "plates too thin for asa (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.35 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.46 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.57 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.36 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 6, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.17 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.83 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.50 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.94 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.39 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.38 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.81 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 0.79 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm overstressed (pla_plus)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.72 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.03 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.35 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1}

USER INSPIRATION -- the researcher asked you to draw on the ideas below when proposing designs. Translate them into the genome; do not ignore them:
# Buckminster Fuller — ephemeralization

"How much does your building weigh?" Ask it of every proposal. Fuller's
whole program was ephemeralization: doing more and more with less and
less until eventually you do everything with nothing.

- Weigh everything. The score is energy per kilometer and every gram
  is a recurring tax paid in all six scenarios. Before admiring any
  feature, ask what it weighs and what it earns.
- Tension is cheap, compression is heavy. A fat straight arm resists
  bending like a wall; ask instead where the loads actually flow.
  Deep waisting keeps material only where the bending moment lives —
  an arm can be a truss pretending to be a plate.
- The geodesic insight: strength from geometry, not from bulk. Sweep
  angles triangulate the airframe; a well-chosen pair of front/rear
  sweeps braces the disk like a dome's great circles. Find the
  geometry that lets thickness and width fall.
- Dymaxion: maximum performance per unit of input. Compute each
  elite's Wh/km per gram of frame; propose designs that maximize that
  ratio rather than minimizing either term alone.
- "You never change things by fighting the existing reality." The
  stock frame is the existing reality. Build the new model — the
  radically light one that makes heaviness obsolete — rather than
  filing grams off the old one.


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 0437c36d — Every elite has already driven arm mass to its floor (waist 0.55, thickness 0.004) and battery tilt to its ceiling (~15deg) yet plateaued at 8.42 Wh/km-agg with only timid sweep deviation from stock — this design abandons bulk entirely and pushes both sweeps far past stock (42/50 vs stock ~31/36) into genuine geodesic triangulation, growing plates to 1.28/1.22 to keep the tongue bolts anchored andflew at 8.865 Wh/km
candidate b46801ba — The elite family spends its entire frontal-area budget on a maxed battery wedge that sits right against the dominant rotor-clearance failure mode (17 rejects in the histogram); this design abandons wedge tilt almost entirely (2deg) and instead cuts disk loading by stretching the wheelbase toward its 1.30 ceiling on a cheap deep-waisted tension-truss arm, with a touch more thickness than prior longflew at 9.143 Wh/km
candidate 5c5784b9 — Every elite is an all-carbon monoculture; this design tests ephemeralization on the material axis instead, letting tougher PETG carry storm-gust loads through generous plate thickness (1.35x, well past the printed-material floor) while the arm returns to a stock-adjacent, moderately-waisted profile rather than the earlier failed PA12-CF probe's bulky wide arm, aiming to survive where that one brokinvalid — arm tip deflection (petg)

b3e74ae3f068

8.417 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.56
cold_headwind	6.57
crosswind	5.16
gusty_light	4.66
hot_thin	3.81
storm	6.69

2a2f347652ad

8.510 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.57
cold_headwind	6.67
crosswind	5.20
gusty_light	4.70
hot_thin	3.83
storm	6.77

c022b6d61878

8.646 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.63
cold_headwind	6.78
crosswind	5.31
gusty_light	4.78
hot_thin	3.88
storm	6.88

0437c36d112e

8.865 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.66
cold_headwind	7.04
crosswind	5.43
gusty_light	4.88
hot_thin	3.92
storm	7.07

5cf3eda75663

8.948 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.74
cold_headwind	7.02
crosswind	5.49
gusty_light	4.93
hot_thin	4.00
storm	7.12

b46801ba6f97

9.143 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.69
cold_headwind	7.33
crosswind	5.59
gusty_light	5.00
hot_thin	3.97
storm	7.31

ecc91d01ceae

9.580 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.98
cold_headwind	7.51
crosswind	5.93
gusty_light	5.29
hot_thin	4.24
storm	7.63

966c44cb5013

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.24 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

a2e97ae3cf50

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.02 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

7681399e6835

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.07 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

49d849b5884d

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

ae26f7f5304a

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

ceea3704fbeb

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

53189d146762

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

1e548f9924d7

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

5c5784b985d8

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (petg)

calm_warm	3.66
cold_headwind	7.04
crosswind	5.47
gusty_light	4.89
hot_thin	3.91
storm	7.08

generation 9

inputs

✦ claude designer · scheduled round · 2 design(s) injected, 4 rejected pre-flight

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	2
crossovers (tournament parents)	10
mutants (single parent)	1
random immigrants	1

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 8.976, g1 8.976, g2 8.976, g3 8.911, g4 8.849, g5 8.804, g6 8.417, g7 8.417, g8 8.417 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 2 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 8.417 Wh/km-agg, frame 103 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 0.9082, "arm_width_scale": 0.8312, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5528, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 35.2769, "rear_sweep_deg": 38.8658, "plate_length_scale": 1.1478, "plate_width_scale": 0.9758, "deck_gap": 0.0287, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.7202, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.1889, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.56, "cold_headwind": 6.57, "crosswind": 5.16, "gusty_light": 4.66, "hot_thin": 3.81, "storm": 6.69}
fitness 8.715 Wh/km-agg, frame 110 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.0397, "arm_width_scale": 0.9034, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 34.7636, "rear_sweep_deg": 39.8998, "plate_length_scale": 1.0941, "plate_width_scale": 1.0115, "deck_gap": 0.03, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.7784, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.2493, "material": 0.007} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.62, "cold_headwind": 6.88, "crosswind": 5.34, "gusty_light": 4.8, "hot_thin": 3.88, "storm": 6.94}
fitness 8.741 Wh/km-agg, frame 108 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.0056, "arm_width_scale": 0.9447, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5823, "arm_thickness": 0.0041, "front_sweep_deg": 33.262, "rear_sweep_deg": 40.2691, "plate_length_scale": 1.0675, "plate_width_scale": 1.0134, "deck_gap": 0.0331, "battery_wedge_deg": 10.8379, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.1383, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.61, "cold_headwind": 6.93, "crosswind": 5.34, "gusty_light": 4.81, "hot_thin": 3.87, "storm": 6.97}
fitness 8.762 Wh/km-agg, frame 109 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.0427, "arm_width_scale": 0.8296, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5793, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 36.7722, "rear_sweep_deg": 38.8134, "plate_length_scale": 1.0794, "plate_width_scale": 0.9968, "deck_gap": 0.0358, "battery_wedge_deg": 15.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.2399, "material": 0.0547} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.65, "cold_headwind": 6.91, "crosswind": 5.37, "gusty_light": 4.83, "hot_thin": 3.9, "storm": 6.98}
fitness 8.778 Wh/km-agg, frame 111 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.0411, "arm_width_scale": 0.9814, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5757, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.5303, "rear_sweep_deg": 38.8098, "plate_length_scale": 1.0575, "plate_width_scale": 1.0112, "deck_gap": 0.0299, "battery_wedge_deg": 12.7912, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.2448, "material": 0.0282} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.62, "cold_headwind": 6.96, "crosswind": 5.37, "gusty_light": 4.83, "hot_thin": 3.89, "storm": 7.0}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g0 `3aa66c71` INVALID (arm tip deflection (asa)) — was: Storm-hardened ASA workhorse: modest arm width and thickness plus a slightly grown plate scale give the gust-loaded worst-case scenario a stiffer, weather-tolerant airframe without ballooning mass.
- g0 `bd035022` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pet_cf)) — was: Target cold_headwind and crosswind directly: long slender tension-optimized arms for calmer disk interference plus an aggressive battery wedge to shrink frontal area, in a mid-weight PET-CF composite.
- g3 `07659e37` fitness 9.398 Wh/km-agg — was: Same lightweight PA12-CF geometry as the failed design but with deck_gap opened to 0.032 m and battery_wedge trimmed to 10 deg so the tilted battery no longer intrudes on rotor clearance.
- g3 `8e9a6993` fitness 9.202 Wh/km-agg — was: Geodesic-dome bracing: hold the front sweep near stock but swing the rear sweep far out to triangulate the airframe geometrically, letting arm width/thickness and deck plate thickness fall since the load path is braced by angle rather than bulk.
- g3 `c842b896` fitness 9.344 Wh/km-agg — was: Fuller's tension-is-cheap truss: stretch the arm well beyond the elite's wheelbase for lower disk interference, but keep it light by deep-waisting it into a truss rather than a plate, betting the longer moment arm pays for itself in cruise efficiency.
- g6 `3e4926e1` fitness 9.542 Wh/km-agg — was: Material-diversity probe: break out of the all-carbon monoculture with tougher PA12-CF, compensating its lower stiffness with a thicker, wider, less-waisted arm so storm-gust flex loads that killed earlier printed-material entries are absorbed rather than fought.
- g6 `50612ef7` fitness 8.804 Wh/km-agg — was: Keep the elite's proven deep-waisted, near-stock-swept geometry but trade a little battery-wedge frontal-area gain for real vertical clearance: deck_gap opened to 0.033 m and wedge trimmed to 11 deg so the tilted battery and rotor plane stop colliding, the failure mode both rejected designs shared.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.56 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 4, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 16, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 10, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 5, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 9, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 2, "plates too thin for asa (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 3, "plates too thin for asa (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.35 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.46 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 3, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.57 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.36 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 6, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.17 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.83 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.50 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_top 0.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.94 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.39 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.38 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.81 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 0.79 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm overstressed (pla_plus)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.72 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1}

USER INSPIRATION -- the researcher asked you to draw on the ideas below when proposing designs. Translate them into the genome; do not ignore them:
# Buckminster Fuller — ephemeralization

"How much does your building weigh?" Ask it of every proposal. Fuller's
whole program was ephemeralization: doing more and more with less and
less until eventually you do everything with nothing.

- Weigh everything. The score is energy per kilometer and every gram
  is a recurring tax paid in all six scenarios. Before admiring any
  feature, ask what it weighs and what it earns.
- Tension is cheap, compression is heavy. A fat straight arm resists
  bending like a wall; ask instead where the loads actually flow.
  Deep waisting keeps material only where the bending moment lives —
  an arm can be a truss pretending to be a plate.
- The geodesic insight: strength from geometry, not from bulk. Sweep
  angles triangulate the airframe; a well-chosen pair of front/rear
  sweeps braces the disk like a dome's great circles. Find the
  geometry that lets thickness and width fall.
- Dymaxion: maximum performance per unit of input. Compute each
  elite's Wh/km per gram of frame; propose designs that maximize that
  ratio rather than minimizing either term alone.
- "You never change things by fighting the existing reality." The
  stock frame is the existing reality. Build the new model — the
  radically light one that makes heaviness obsolete — rather than
  filing grams off the old one.


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 2e258492 — Geodesic-dome bracing v2: swing the rear sweep out to 48 deg (well beyond the earlier failed 50 deg attempt) but this time grow both plate scales to 1.20 (comfortably above the ~1.12 the rule-of-thumb demands), letting triangulated geometry carry load so the arm can go to its minimum width, waist, and thickness.flew at 8.675 Wh/km
candidate 2e045ca5 — Fuller tension-truss arm: stretch the wheelbase to 1.15 for lower disk interference in cruise, betting the longer moment arm's cheap-tension bracing (deep waist, minimum thickness) pays for itself despite the extra reach, with stock-adjacent sweeps keeping the plate scales modest.flew at 8.805 Wh/km
candidate f16ac961 — rejected pre-flight (plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)) — Extrapolate the winning elite's own trend past stock length toward a shorter, lighter wheelbase (0.908->0.83) with the deepest waist and thinnest carbon shell, letting a trimmed plate_thickness pay off the recurring 'every gram is a six-scenario tax' bill since a shorter arm root sees less bending moment.
candidate cb7ffb91 — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — Retry the geodesic dome-bracing idea that failed in g3, but this time obey the coupling rule and grow plate_length/width with the far-out rear sweep so triangulated geometry -- not plate bulk -- carries the load, letting arm width fall back toward stock while the rear-swept truss braces the disk.
candidate bc347ec4 — rejected pre-flight (plate web too thin (plate_main 1.07 mm, stock 1.90 mm)) — Dymaxion per-gram probe: push plate_thickness_scale and arm_width down to the lowest values the web/deflection constraints allow (0.90 / 0.78) and trade some of the elite's maxed-out battery wedge for a narrower plate profile, testing whether the elites are over-built on plate bulk beyond what the load path needs.
candidate 356e1441 — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Dymaxion short-arm probe: shrink the wheelbase toward 0.80 (below the whole elite cluster) to shed the recurring per-scenario mass tax, keeping sweeps near stock so the plates need no extra growth and staying deep-waisted for stiffness at the shorter moment arm.

b3e74ae3f068

8.417 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.56
cold_headwind	6.57
crosswind	5.16
gusty_light	4.66
hot_thin	3.81
storm	6.69

c022b6d61878

8.646 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.63
cold_headwind	6.78
crosswind	5.31
gusty_light	4.78
hot_thin	3.88
storm	6.88

fed91bcec3a8

8.657 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.61
cold_headwind	6.81
crosswind	5.30
gusty_light	4.78
hot_thin	3.87
storm	6.89

2e2584925751

8.675 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.66
cold_headwind	6.79
crosswind	5.32
gusty_light	4.79
hot_thin	3.91
storm	6.89

77add95242e3

8.715 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.62
cold_headwind	6.88
crosswind	5.34
gusty_light	4.80
hot_thin	3.88
storm	6.94

2e045ca5141c

8.805 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.62
cold_headwind	7.01
crosswind	5.39
gusty_light	4.84
hot_thin	3.88
storm	7.02

2bee1d176dd9

9.017 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.67
cold_headwind	7.21
crosswind	5.49
gusty_light	4.94
hot_thin	3.94
storm	7.21

1cd06adb23cc

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

5c2e2bcc966e

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.35 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

ce6b039bcd2d

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

259b68ef35c0

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

400225708bb1

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.38 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

b09258c3d412

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

9e2ce80bc051

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

9fde71d9ee48

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

5adde3248b21

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.03 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

generation 8

b3e74ae3f068

8.417 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.56
cold_headwind	6.57
crosswind	5.16
gusty_light	4.66
hot_thin	3.81
storm	6.69

77add95242e3

8.715 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.62
cold_headwind	6.88
crosswind	5.34
gusty_light	4.80
hot_thin	3.88
storm	6.94

28d9e90c9765

8.741 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.61
cold_headwind	6.93
crosswind	5.34
gusty_light	4.81
hot_thin	3.87
storm	6.97

2f0af12d1d7a

8.762 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.65
cold_headwind	6.91
crosswind	5.37
gusty_light	4.83
hot_thin	3.90
storm	6.98

0627ca0757a8

8.895 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.67
cold_headwind	7.03
crosswind	5.46
gusty_light	4.90
hot_thin	3.94
storm	7.09

434c93252eb9

9.624 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.80
cold_headwind	7.78
crosswind	5.87
gusty_light	5.21
hot_thin	4.07
storm	7.67

c861f33805b9

∞ wh/km agg

arm overstressed (pla_plus)

calm_warm	3.69
cold_headwind	7.92
crosswind	5.89
gusty_light	5.20
hot_thin	3.95
storm	7.72

01be98e0c2c9

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.38 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

961967e8331f

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.79 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

eb2699ee5c1f

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.72 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

93b4d9796e15

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

71f35705f8c7

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.51 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

3f0d7ef4df41

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

58f5ae31da0b

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

14d888ada59f

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.81 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

605c83a9fc2d

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

generation 7

b3e74ae3f068

8.417 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.56
cold_headwind	6.57
crosswind	5.16
gusty_light	4.66
hot_thin	3.81
storm	6.69

77add95242e3

8.715 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.62
cold_headwind	6.88
crosswind	5.34
gusty_light	4.80
hot_thin	3.88
storm	6.94

daf1290aba2d

8.834 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.62
cold_headwind	7.03
crosswind	5.39
gusty_light	4.85
hot_thin	3.89
storm	7.05

27652b59f24b

8.879 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.66
cold_headwind	7.04
crosswind	5.44
gusty_light	4.88
hot_thin	3.93
storm	7.08

dcb3f64eb3a5

8.932 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.66
cold_headwind	7.12
crosswind	5.46
gusty_light	4.90
hot_thin	3.92
storm	7.13

450520fc0d54

8.949 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.69
cold_headwind	7.08
crosswind	5.49
gusty_light	4.93
hot_thin	3.96
storm	7.14

f1776ef30fd3

9.595 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.81
cold_headwind	7.74
crosswind	5.86
gusty_light	5.20
hot_thin	4.08
storm	7.66

632c421891fa

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

b10091c500a6

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

19ad759161a6

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.94 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

935f55ca62ce

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

c093d00fcfca

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

09995c7e3c83

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.63
cold_headwind	7.74
crosswind	5.78
gusty_light	5.09
hot_thin	3.89
storm	7.54

5e30bf2e9c54

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

55b9b9275fe5

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.39 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

d8d1adf7d686

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

generation 6

inputs

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

elites carried over unchanged	2
claude-designed	2
crossovers (tournament parents)	11
random immigrants	1

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 8.976, g1 8.976, g2 8.976, g3 8.911, g4 8.849, g5 8.804

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 8.804 Wh/km-agg, frame 112 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.0398, "arm_width_scale": 0.992, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5734, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 31.5424, "rear_sweep_deg": 38.6691, "plate_length_scale": 1.0619, "plate_width_scale": 1.011, "deck_gap": 0.0299, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.7781, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.2511, "material": 0.0266} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.64, "cold_headwind": 6.98, "crosswind": 5.39, "gusty_light": 4.84, "hot_thin": 3.9, "storm": 7.02}
fitness 8.846 Wh/km-agg, frame 112 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.0229, "arm_width_scale": 0.9772, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.0041, "front_sweep_deg": 35.165, "rear_sweep_deg": 38.8634, "plate_length_scale": 1.1491, "plate_width_scale": 1.0143, "deck_gap": 0.0287, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.7271, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.1625, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.65, "cold_headwind": 7.03, "crosswind": 5.41, "gusty_light": 4.86, "hot_thin": 3.91, "storm": 7.05}
fitness 8.849 Wh/km-agg, frame 114 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.0398, "arm_width_scale": 0.9775, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5732, "arm_thickness": 0.004, "front_sweep_deg": 33.0799, "rear_sweep_deg": 38.7189, "plate_length_scale": 1.0662, "plate_width_scale": 1.0141, "deck_gap": 0.0299, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.7816, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.3194, "material": 0.0443} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.66, "cold_headwind": 7.02, "crosswind": 5.41, "gusty_light": 4.86, "hot_thin": 3.92, "storm": 7.06}
fitness 8.911 Wh/km-agg, frame 118 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.0228, "arm_width_scale": 0.9779, "arm_waist_scale": 0.55, "arm_thickness": 0.0044, "front_sweep_deg": 31.2967, "rear_sweep_deg": 38.7026, "plate_length_scale": 1.1606, "plate_width_scale": 1.014, "deck_gap": 0.0287, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.7423, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.168, "material": 0.0} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.67, "cold_headwind": 7.07, "crosswind": 5.46, "gusty_light": 4.9, "hot_thin": 3.94, "storm": 7.11}
fitness 8.915 Wh/km-agg, frame 114 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.0192, "arm_width_scale": 0.9536, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5728, "arm_thickness": 0.0044, "front_sweep_deg": 39.2604, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.0854, "plate_length_scale": 1.1657, "plate_width_scale": 1.0377, "deck_gap": 0.0294, "battery_wedge_deg": 13.3748, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.0394, "material": 0.0535} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.67, "cold_headwind": 7.1, "crosswind": 5.46, "gusty_light": 4.9, "hot_thin": 3.93, "storm": 7.11}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g0 `3aa66c71` INVALID (arm tip deflection (asa)) — was: Storm-hardened ASA workhorse: modest arm width and thickness plus a slightly grown plate scale give the gust-loaded worst-case scenario a stiffer, weather-tolerant airframe without ballooning mass.
- g0 `bd035022` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pet_cf)) — was: Target cold_headwind and crosswind directly: long slender tension-optimized arms for calmer disk interference plus an aggressive battery wedge to shrink frontal area, in a mid-weight PET-CF composite.
- g3 `07659e37` fitness 9.398 Wh/km-agg — was: Same lightweight PA12-CF geometry as the failed design but with deck_gap opened to 0.032 m and battery_wedge trimmed to 10 deg so the tilted battery no longer intrudes on rotor clearance.
- g3 `8e9a6993` fitness 9.202 Wh/km-agg — was: Geodesic-dome bracing: hold the front sweep near stock but swing the rear sweep far out to triangulate the airframe geometrically, letting arm width/thickness and deck plate thickness fall since the load path is braced by angle rather than bulk.
- g3 `c842b896` fitness 9.344 Wh/km-agg — was: Fuller's tension-is-cheap truss: stretch the arm well beyond the elite's wheelbase for lower disk interference, but keep it light by deep-waisting it into a truss rather than a plate, betting the longer moment arm pays for itself in cruise efficiency.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.56 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 4, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 13, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 9, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 4, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 6, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 2, "plates too thin for asa (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 3, "plates too thin for asa (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.35 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.46 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.57 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.36 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm root tongues collide on the main plate": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.17 mm, stock 1.47 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.83 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1}

USER INSPIRATION -- the researcher asked you to draw on the ideas below when proposing designs. Translate them into the genome; do not ignore them:
# Buckminster Fuller — ephemeralization

"How much does your building weigh?" Ask it of every proposal. Fuller's
whole program was ephemeralization: doing more and more with less and
less until eventually you do everything with nothing.

- Weigh everything. The score is energy per kilometer and every gram
  is a recurring tax paid in all six scenarios. Before admiring any
  feature, ask what it weighs and what it earns.
- Tension is cheap, compression is heavy. A fat straight arm resists
  bending like a wall; ask instead where the loads actually flow.
  Deep waisting keeps material only where the bending moment lives —
  an arm can be a truss pretending to be a plate.
- The geodesic insight: strength from geometry, not from bulk. Sweep
  angles triangulate the airframe; a well-chosen pair of front/rear
  sweeps braces the disk like a dome's great circles. Find the
  geometry that lets thickness and width fall.
- Dymaxion: maximum performance per unit of input. Compute each
  elite's Wh/km per gram of frame; propose designs that maximize that
  ratio rather than minimizing either term alone.
- "You never change things by fighting the existing reality." The
  stock frame is the existing reality. Build the new model — the
  radically light one that makes heaviness obsolete — rather than
  filing grams off the old one.


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 3e4926e1 — Material-diversity probe: break out of the all-carbon monoculture with tougher PA12-CF, compensating its lower stiffness with a thicker, wider, less-waisted arm so storm-gust flex loads that killed earlier printed-material entries are absorbed rather than fought.flew at 9.542 Wh/km
candidate 50612ef7 — Keep the elite's proven deep-waisted, near-stock-swept geometry but trade a little battery-wedge frontal-area gain for real vertical clearance: deck_gap opened to 0.033 m and wedge trimmed to 11 deg so the tilted battery and rotor plane stop colliding, the failure mode both rejected designs shared.flew at 8.804 Wh/km
candidate 6ca96c6f — rejected pre-flight (rotor too close to deck/battery) — Geodesic dome bracing: swing both sweeps well beyond stock (front 38°, rear 46°) to triangulate the airframe like great circles, growing the deck plates to protect the tongue bolts and FC-stack webs so a thin, deep-waisted cf_plate arm can carry load through geometry instead of bulk.
candidate 60f3a609 — rejected pre-flight (rotor too close to deck/battery) — Ephemeralization bet: hold the proven near-stock cf_plate geometry but strip the plate stack down toward its thinnest viable gauge and shrink the standoff to the FC-stack's hard floor, chasing the highest Wh/km-per-gram rather than more stiffness margin than the loads actually need.
candidate ff5edf34 — rejected pre-flight (plate web too thin (plate_main 1.44 mm, stock 1.90 mm)) — Dymaxion long-arm cruiser: stretch the wheelbase well past the elites to cut disk interference and let a longer moment arm pay for cruise efficiency, while stepping back from both the aggressive wedge and far-swept plates that caused the clearance failures, keeping sweeps near stock and plates near baseline for margin.

b3e74ae3f068

8.417 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.56
cold_headwind	6.57
crosswind	5.16
gusty_light	4.66
hot_thin	3.81
storm	6.69

77add95242e3

8.715 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.62
cold_headwind	6.88
crosswind	5.34
gusty_light	4.80
hot_thin	3.88
storm	6.94

b8876ad41202

8.778 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.62
cold_headwind	6.96
crosswind	5.37
gusty_light	4.83
hot_thin	3.89
storm	7.00

4b2439e8c799

8.791 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.63
cold_headwind	6.98
crosswind	5.38
gusty_light	4.83
hot_thin	3.89
storm	7.01

6743a1c5188e

8.804 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.64
cold_headwind	6.98
crosswind	5.39
gusty_light	4.84
hot_thin	3.90
storm	7.02

50612ef7c10f

8.804 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.62
cold_headwind	7.00
crosswind	5.38
gusty_light	4.84
hot_thin	3.88
storm	7.03

72d12d79e45b

8.846 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.65
cold_headwind	7.03
crosswind	5.41
gusty_light	4.86
hot_thin	3.91
storm	7.05

441be7ba797b

9.196 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.75
cold_headwind	7.35
crosswind	5.64
gusty_light	5.04
hot_thin	4.01
storm	7.34

0254324201dc

9.455 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.78
cold_headwind	7.61
crosswind	5.78
gusty_light	5.14
hot_thin	4.04
storm	7.54

3e4926e196c8

9.542 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.75
cold_headwind	7.72
crosswind	5.86
gusty_light	5.17
hot_thin	4.00
storm	7.61

4fd0c3fa38a5

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.17 mm, stock 1.47 mm)

59ef9fe74392

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.50 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

eb5310ac9604

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

9b52b92a17c5

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_top 0.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)

6c6b4c8a7fa3

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

1ea6fbdda598

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

generation 5

6743a1c5188e

8.804 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.64
cold_headwind	6.98
crosswind	5.39
gusty_light	4.84
hot_thin	3.90
storm	7.02

72d12d79e45b

8.846 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.65
cold_headwind	7.03
crosswind	5.41
gusty_light	4.86
hot_thin	3.91
storm	7.05

42e69e9a014f

8.849 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.66
cold_headwind	7.02
crosswind	5.41
gusty_light	4.86
hot_thin	3.92
storm	7.06

b8c2956342ea

8.911 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.67
cold_headwind	7.07
crosswind	5.46
gusty_light	4.90
hot_thin	3.94
storm	7.11

2d7d1cb6e889

8.915 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.67
cold_headwind	7.10
crosswind	5.46
gusty_light	4.90
hot_thin	3.93
storm	7.11

1bf68b45b50f

9.082 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.68
cold_headwind	7.28
crosswind	5.56
gusty_light	4.96
hot_thin	3.94
storm	7.24

077a27004744

9.093 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.72
cold_headwind	7.25
crosswind	5.58
gusty_light	4.99
hot_thin	3.98
storm	7.26

ca33fd2a1134

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.87 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

3ff117767c28

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

e445d13c8830

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

9d7f7fc96a01

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.55
cold_headwind	6.97
crosswind	5.36
gusty_light	4.78
hot_thin	3.80
storm	6.95

5989c0b3e245

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

5e081f3618af

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.17 mm, stock 1.47 mm)

b01a11a19703

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

bc3056e385c4

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.83 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

ca3d8e93df9b

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (petg)

calm_warm	4.09
cold_headwind	fail
crosswind	6.80
gusty_light	5.96
hot_thin	4.38
storm	9.01

generation 4

42e69e9a014f

8.849 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.66
cold_headwind	7.02
crosswind	5.41
gusty_light	4.86
hot_thin	3.92
storm	7.06

b8c2956342ea

8.911 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.67
cold_headwind	7.07
crosswind	5.46
gusty_light	4.90
hot_thin	3.94
storm	7.11

e6d8abe43a27

8.970 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.72
cold_headwind	7.09
crosswind	5.51
gusty_light	4.94
hot_thin	3.98
storm	7.15

4452fd0f6eb1

8.970 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.71
cold_headwind	7.11
crosswind	5.50
gusty_light	4.93
hot_thin	3.97
storm	7.15

88c6ef3f75ea

9.088 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.73
cold_headwind	7.23
crosswind	5.57
gusty_light	4.99
hot_thin	4.00
storm	7.25

b14dfa732835

9.111 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.75
cold_headwind	7.22
crosswind	5.60
gusty_light	5.01
hot_thin	4.02
storm	7.27

56a06bf8c7a9

9.387 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.81
cold_headwind	7.50
crosswind	5.79
gusty_light	5.14
hot_thin	4.08
storm	7.50

a24842d610fe

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

3d3552460bcf

∞ wh/km agg

arm root tongues collide on the main plate

9bf632df6fb5

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

4ddc9b663441

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

c9c58bce18f6

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

33c4e9af1d8a

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.36 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

c3396aa525d5

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.91 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

6ef8d3181d92

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

4d7d0d0b9bba

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

generation 3

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
random immigrants	1

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 8.976, g1 8.976, g2 8.976 — flat (no >=0.5% improvement) for the last 2 generation(s)

CURRENT ELITES (best first):
fitness 8.976 Wh/km-agg, frame 124 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.0228, "arm_width_scale": 0.9779, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5731, "arm_thickness": 0.0044, "front_sweep_deg": 33.0731, "rear_sweep_deg": 38.7026, "plate_length_scale": 1.1614, "plate_width_scale": 1.014, "deck_gap": 0.0289, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.7423, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.322, "material": 0.044} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.71, "cold_headwind": 7.1, "crosswind": 5.51, "gusty_light": 4.94, "hot_thin": 3.98, "storm": 7.15}
fitness 8.976 Wh/km-agg, frame 124 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.0228, "arm_width_scale": 0.9779, "arm_waist_scale": 0.5731, "arm_thickness": 0.0044, "front_sweep_deg": 33.0731, "rear_sweep_deg": 38.7026, "plate_length_scale": 1.1606, "plate_width_scale": 1.014, "deck_gap": 0.0289, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.7423, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.322, "material": 0.044} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.71, "cold_headwind": 7.1, "crosswind": 5.51, "gusty_light": 4.94, "hot_thin": 3.98, "storm": 7.15}
fitness 9.105 Wh/km-agg, frame 126 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.0298, "arm_width_scale": 1.0565, "arm_waist_scale": 0.571, "arm_thickness": 0.0044, "front_sweep_deg": 34.8119, "rear_sweep_deg": 37.2749, "plate_length_scale": 1.1612, "plate_width_scale": 1.0115, "deck_gap": 0.0289, "battery_wedge_deg": 14.3588, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.304, "material": 0.1075} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.74, "cold_headwind": 7.26, "crosswind": 5.57, "gusty_light": 4.99, "hot_thin": 4.0, "storm": 7.27}
fitness 9.621 Wh/km-agg, frame 144 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.0, "arm_width_scale": 1.0, "arm_waist_scale": 1.0, "arm_thickness": 0.006, "front_sweep_deg": 31.4, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.0, "plate_length_scale": 1.0, "plate_width_scale": 1.0, "deck_gap": 0.03, "battery_wedge_deg": 2.0, "plate_thickness_scale": 1.0, "material": 0.05} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.86, "cold_headwind": 7.74, "crosswind": 5.84, "gusty_light": 5.23, "hot_thin": 4.14, "storm": 7.7}
fitness 9.733 Wh/km-agg, frame 146 g, cf_plate: genes={"arm_length_scale": 1.0061, "arm_width_scale": 0.9932, "arm_waist_scale": 1.0083, "arm_thickness": 0.006, "front_sweep_deg": 32.1033, "rear_sweep_deg": 36.0113, "plate_length_scale": 1.0016, "plate_width_scale": 1.0682, "deck_gap": 0.0291, "battery_wedge_deg": 3.2669, "plate_thickness_scale": 0.973, "material": 0.0497} scenarios={"calm_warm": 3.88, "cold_headwind": 7.84, "crosswind": 5.89, "gusty_light": 5.28, "hot_thin": 4.16, "storm": 7.81}

YOUR EARLIER PROPOSALS AND HOW THEY FARED:
- g0 `3aa66c71` INVALID (arm tip deflection (asa)) — was: Storm-hardened ASA workhorse: modest arm width and thickness plus a slightly grown plate scale give the gust-loaded worst-case scenario a stiffer, weather-tolerant airframe without ballooning mass.
- g0 `bd035022` INVALID (arm tip deflection (pet_cf)) — was: Target cold_headwind and crosswind directly: long slender tension-optimized arms for calmer disk interference plus an aggressive battery wedge to shrink frontal area, in a mid-weight PET-CF composite.

RECENT INVALID-DESIGN REASONS (histogram): {"plate web too thin (plate_main 0.56 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (asa)": 3, "rotor too close to deck/battery": 8, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack": 7, "rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)": 2, "arm tongue bolts miss the main plate": 3, "arm tip deflection (pet_cf)": 2, "plates too thin for asa (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 3, "plates too thin for asa (1.6 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "plates too thin for pla_plus (1.4 < 1.6 mm)": 1, "arm tip deflection (petg)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 2, "plate web too thin (plate_main 1.35 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1, "plate web too thin (plate_main 0.46 mm, stock 1.90 mm)": 1}

USER INSPIRATION -- the researcher asked you to draw on the ideas below when proposing designs. Translate them into the genome; do not ignore them:
# Buckminster Fuller — ephemeralization

"How much does your building weigh?" Ask it of every proposal. Fuller's
whole program was ephemeralization: doing more and more with less and
less until eventually you do everything with nothing.

- Weigh everything. The score is energy per kilometer and every gram
  is a recurring tax paid in all six scenarios. Before admiring any
  feature, ask what it weighs and what it earns.
- Tension is cheap, compression is heavy. A fat straight arm resists
  bending like a wall; ask instead where the loads actually flow.
  Deep waisting keeps material only where the bending moment lives —
  an arm can be a truss pretending to be a plate.
- The geodesic insight: strength from geometry, not from bulk. Sweep
  angles triangulate the airframe; a well-chosen pair of front/rear
  sweeps braces the disk like a dome's great circles. Find the
  geometry that lets thickness and width fall.
- Dymaxion: maximum performance per unit of input. Compute each
  elite's Wh/km per gram of frame; propose designs that maximize that
  ratio rather than minimizing either term alone.
- "You never change things by fighting the existing reality." The
  stock frame is the existing reality. Build the new model — the
  radically light one that makes heaviness obsolete — rather than
  filing grams off the old one.


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 c842b896 — Fuller's tension-is-cheap truss: stretch the arm well beyond the elite's wheelbase for lower disk interference, but keep it light by deep-waisting it into a truss rather than a plate, betting the longer moment arm pays for itself in cruise efficiency.flew at 9.344 Wh/km
candidate 8e9a6993 — Geodesic-dome bracing: hold the front sweep near stock but swing the rear sweep far out to triangulate the airframe geometrically, letting arm width/thickness and deck plate thickness fall since the load path is braced by angle rather than bulk.flew at 9.202 Wh/km
candidate 07659e37 — Same lightweight PA12-CF geometry as the failed design but with deck_gap opened to 0.032 m and battery_wedge trimmed to 10 deg so the tilted battery no longer intrudes on rotor clearance.flew at 9.398 Wh/km
candidate 92d6562d — rejected pre-flight (rotor too close to deck/battery) — Dymaxion material swap: test whether PA12-CF's different strength-to-weight profile, given stock-like geometry and enough arm/plate margin to clear its stiffness needs, can beat carbon plate on Wh/km per gram rather than just chasing thinner carbon.

b8c2956342ea

8.911 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.67
cold_headwind	7.07
crosswind	5.46
gusty_light	4.90
hot_thin	3.94
storm	7.11

4452fd0f6eb1

8.970 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.71
cold_headwind	7.11
crosswind	5.50
gusty_light	4.93
hot_thin	3.97
storm	7.15

f70bbea1c415

8.976 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.71
cold_headwind	7.10
crosswind	5.51
gusty_light	4.94
hot_thin	3.98
storm	7.15

83fa9cf73bfb

8.976 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.71
cold_headwind	7.10
crosswind	5.51
gusty_light	4.94
hot_thin	3.98
storm	7.15

8e9a69935b5d

9.202 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.79
cold_headwind	7.34
crosswind	5.63
gusty_light	5.04
hot_thin	4.06
storm	7.34

03f39507cfc5

9.304 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.77
cold_headwind	7.46
crosswind	5.69
gusty_light	5.08
hot_thin	4.03
storm	7.42

c842b896dcef

9.344 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.79
cold_headwind	7.47
crosswind	5.76
gusty_light	5.12
hot_thin	4.06
storm	7.46

07659e37087d

9.398 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.70
cold_headwind	7.60
crosswind	5.75
gusty_light	5.10
hot_thin	3.94
storm	7.49

dea29e6b57ad

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

c0681ef6bef2

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)

calm_warm	3.54
cold_headwind	6.92
crosswind	5.35
gusty_light	4.77
hot_thin	3.79
storm	6.92

013fe1c44e4e

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.37 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

0f2b6ba9232f

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

c4995907b02a

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (asa)

calm_warm	3.87
cold_headwind	fail
crosswind	6.51
gusty_light	5.66
hot_thin	4.13
storm	8.54

d2924497c88c

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.57 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

f28a463cc503

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

c3df5340dafd

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

generation 2

f70bbea1c415

8.976 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.71
cold_headwind	7.10
crosswind	5.51
gusty_light	4.94
hot_thin	3.98
storm	7.15

83fa9cf73bfb

8.976 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.71
cold_headwind	7.10
crosswind	5.51
gusty_light	4.94
hot_thin	3.98
storm	7.15

3b919be0b361

9.733 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.88
cold_headwind	7.84
crosswind	5.89
gusty_light	5.28
hot_thin	4.16
storm	7.81

7c0193188737

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

139ece990afb

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.35 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

3b5d3d95075e

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

57eb346e158c

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.46 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

d724f214d49f

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

9d6d9dd8f4df

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pet_cf)

calm_warm	4.00
cold_headwind	8.60
crosswind	6.40
gusty_light	5.65
hot_thin	4.28
storm	8.43

434494e6eb39

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

f9d6ecad5289

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for asa (1.4 < 1.6 mm)

37be35aca762

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

e735f0a9f5ca

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

560fc277c74f

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (asa)

calm_warm	3.94
cold_headwind	fail
crosswind	6.76
gusty_light	5.87
hot_thin	4.22
storm	fail

700314387508

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

50948185cb67

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

generation 1

f70bbea1c415

8.976 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.71
cold_headwind	7.10
crosswind	5.51
gusty_light	4.94
hot_thin	3.98
storm	7.15

83fa9cf73bfb

8.976 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.71
cold_headwind	7.10
crosswind	5.51
gusty_light	4.94
hot_thin	3.98
storm	7.15

80419d0701cf

9.105 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.74
cold_headwind	7.26
crosswind	5.57
gusty_light	4.99
hot_thin	4.00
storm	7.27

baac55fb3837

9.621 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.86
cold_headwind	7.74
crosswind	5.84
gusty_light	5.23
hot_thin	4.14
storm	7.70

8feb4b8b4942

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

faac948f70a8

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

e8e2e9c8a597

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

80b8f1f7895c

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

3dc7b5e22c2d

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

38468bac9377

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (petg)

calm_warm	3.75
cold_headwind	8.17
crosswind	6.00
gusty_light	5.31
hot_thin	4.01
storm	7.93

2a64ae74d8da

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for pla_plus (1.4 < 1.6 mm)

71bf0ebec7ad

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

1282c6fc1d76

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for asa (1.6 < 1.6 mm)

36dd751eaf4b

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

c93807a57cc1

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (asa)

calm_warm	3.93
cold_headwind	fail
crosswind	6.68
gusty_light	5.81
hot_thin	4.20
storm	8.83

9222fa935c86

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for asa (1.4 < 1.6 mm)

generation 0

inputs

✦ claude designer · opening round — gen-0 design hypotheses · 2 design(s) injected, 7 rejected pre-flight

seeds (baseline + random probes)	14
claude-designed	2

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): {}

USER INSPIRATION -- the researcher asked you to draw on the ideas below when proposing designs. Translate them into the genome; do not ignore them:
# Buckminster Fuller — ephemeralization

"How much does your building weigh?" Ask it of every proposal. Fuller's
whole program was ephemeralization: doing more and more with less and
less until eventually you do everything with nothing.

- Weigh everything. The score is energy per kilometer and every gram
  is a recurring tax paid in all six scenarios. Before admiring any
  feature, ask what it weighs and what it earns.
- Tension is cheap, compression is heavy. A fat straight arm resists
  bending like a wall; ask instead where the loads actually flow.
  Deep waisting keeps material only where the bending moment lives —
  an arm can be a truss pretending to be a plate.
- The geodesic insight: strength from geometry, not from bulk. Sweep
  angles triangulate the airframe; a well-chosen pair of front/rear
  sweeps braces the disk like a dome's great circles. Find the
  geometry that lets thickness and width fall.
- Dymaxion: maximum performance per unit of input. Compute each
  elite's Wh/km per gram of frame; propose designs that maximize that
  ratio rather than minimizing either term alone.
- "You never change things by fighting the existing reality." The
  stock frame is the existing reality. Build the new model — the
  radically light one that makes heaviness obsolete — rather than
  filing grams off the old one.


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 bd035022 — Target cold_headwind and crosswind directly: long slender tension-optimized arms for calmer disk interference plus an aggressive battery wedge to shrink frontal area, in a mid-weight PET-CF composite.invalid — arm tip deflection (pet_cf)
candidate 3aa66c71 — Storm-hardened ASA workhorse: modest arm width and thickness plus a slightly grown plate scale give the gust-loaded worst-case scenario a stiffer, weather-tolerant airframe without ballooning mass.invalid — arm tip deflection (asa)
candidate 0cadfac0 — rejected pre-flight (arm tongue bolts miss the main plate) — Geodesic dome logic: push front/rear sweeps well past stock to triangulate the disk like great-circles, letting a deep-waisted carbon arm and thin plates carry loads through geometry instead of bulk.
candidate 45768795 — rejected pre-flight (plate web too thin (plate_main 1.07 mm, stock 1.90 mm)) — Ask 'how much does it weigh' of every part: near-stock sweeps avoid any plate growth tax, arms waisted to their tension limit, and the lightest viable printed polymer at its thickness floor.
candidate 23b7cf8f — rejected pre-flight (plate web too thin (plate_main 1.43 mm, stock 1.90 mm)) — Storm and crosswind punish unpredictability more than mass: a stout, minimally-waisted carbon arm and stiff thick deck trade some efficiency for a frame whose behavior is insensitive to the arm-drag uncertainty the robustness sweep flagged.
candidate c3c40cfb — rejected pre-flight (plate web too thin (plate_main 1.07 mm, stock 1.90 mm)) — The extreme of ephemeralization for hot_thin's mass-reward: shortest arms, stock sweeps to avoid any plate-growth mass tax, and carbon plate pushed to its absolute thickness floor.
candidate e28df981 — rejected pre-flight (rotor too close to deck/battery) — Ephemeralized truss arm: near-stock sweeps keep tongue bolts safely seated while a deep 0.6 waist and thin 0.8 width strip compression bulk, trusting carbon plate tension to carry the load at minimum mass.
candidate d233cdf7 — rejected pre-flight (rotor too close to deck/battery) — Geodesic wide-sweep brace: pushes both sweeps ~9-10deg past stock to triangulate the disk like great-circle struts against storm gusts, with plate scales grown proportionally so the tongue bolts and FC webs stay seated in tough PA12-CF.
candidate b8b870d4 — rejected pre-flight (rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)) — Ultralight hot-thin racer: shortened wheelbase and thin waisted arms chase the Dymaxion ratio for the thin-air scenario, with stock-adjacent sweeps and a printed PLA+ shell thick enough to stay legal.

f70bbea1c415

8.976 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.71
cold_headwind	7.10
crosswind	5.51
gusty_light	4.94
hot_thin	3.98
storm	7.15

baac55fb3837

9.621 wh/km agg

calm_warm	3.86
cold_headwind	7.74
crosswind	5.84
gusty_light	5.23
hot_thin	4.14
storm	7.70

ca4cabad261c

10.802 wh/km agg

calm_warm	4.19
cold_headwind	8.71
crosswind	6.77
gusty_light	5.88
hot_thin	4.47
storm	8.68

65692b643689

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

e59dae70276c

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

9d755312c2b4

∞ wh/km agg

rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)

e7db1298e21b

∞ wh/km agg

plates too thin for asa (1.4 < 1.6 mm)

ad5b5018de16

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

a756a382d959

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

366fc341ba4b

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.32 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

5bd883a787bb

∞ wh/km agg

rotor too close to deck/battery

8133cd24dc85

∞ wh/km agg

deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack

2fad8ee13f1c

∞ wh/km agg

plate web too thin (plate_main 0.56 mm, stock 1.90 mm)

dfb072237e0b

∞ wh/km agg

arm tongue bolts miss the main plate

bd035022cf25

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (pet_cf)

calm_warm	3.70
cold_headwind	7.52
crosswind	5.69
gusty_light	5.07
hot_thin	3.94
storm	7.43

3aa66c714db3

∞ wh/km agg

arm tip deflection (asa)

calm_warm	3.62
cold_headwind	7.52
crosswind	5.63
gusty_light	5.01
hot_thin	3.88
storm	7.38

candidate details & parentage

click a model to open it full-screen: the full-kit model, its evolved components alone, a side-by-side with the oldest ancestor of its lineage rotating in sync, the net change vs that ancestor, the lineage trail (every ancestor ghosted), and a replay that steps generation by generation from the oldest ancestor to the candidate (3D models load on demand when an overlay opens)

candidate 96a6924c438drun champion

click to open the 3D model

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	8.126 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.900 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.453 Wh/km
frame mass	82.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 20 via crossover

hypothesisParent 168c3f15a835 sat just above the plateau (8.182); the bet was that a very small nudge — slightly shorter arms, slightly more deck gap borrowed from the crossover partner — could finally break through it.

methodWidened deck gap about 1.6 mm and shortened arm length about 2%, keeping sweep, plate dimensions, battery wedge, and thickness essentially at the stronger parent's values.

resultNEW WINNER at 8.126 Wh/km, beating the prior best-so-far of 8.161 and both parents (8.182 and 8.62). Every per-scenario number ticked down uniformly rather than trading one scenario for another, suggesting the tweak trimmed mass/drag broadly without pushing any dimension near a manufacturing limit. Worth testing: nudge deck gap up another 1-2 mm from this new champion to see if the trend continues before diminishing returns set in.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.441	146.2	29.0°
cold_headwind	6.337	269.2	54.6°
crosswind	4.978	211.5	44.5°
gusty_light	4.504	191.3	53.2°
hot_thin	3.685	156.6	33.1°
storm	6.453	274.0	63.0°

gene	value
arm length	×0.93
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	32.9°
rear sweep	37.5°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	31.6 mm
battery wedge	14.5°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 56417773c65d

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.156 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.915 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.481 Wh/km
frame mass	83.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 24 via pivot

hypothesisParent ee1b99647533 sits just behind the champion cluster, so this pivot bets that a small tweak toward the champion's plate-thickness/battery-wedge balance closes the remaining gap.

methodThinned the plate slightly (×0.76→×0.74), tilted the battery wedge up a touch (14.5°→14.8°), widened the arm marginally (×0.75→×0.76), and eased rear sweep back a hair (37.5°→37.4°).

resultFitness came in at 8.156, a small improvement over the parent's 8.161 but still short of the 8.126 best-so-far, so no new winner. The tiny, incremental gain suggests this sub-lineage is near a local optimum for these genes; worth testing a bigger step next, e.g. matching the champion's exact battery-wedge and plate-thickness values directly instead of drifting toward them gradually.

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	29.0°
cold_headwind	6.377	270.9	54.8°
crosswind	4.991	212.0	44.6°
gusty_light	4.515	191.8	53.4°
hot_thin	3.687	156.6	33.1°
storm	6.481	275.2	63.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.97
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	32.9°
rear sweep	37.4°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	30.3 mm
battery wedge	14.8°
plate thickness	×0.74
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate ccfb32cf7a19

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.249 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.968 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.562 Wh/km
frame mass	84.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 28 via crossover

hypothesisA recombination of two of the strongest survivors, both clustered in the 8.15 to 8.25 band, betting that the efficient traits they had arrived at independently would combine into something better than either.

methodInherited one parent almost entirely, with the arms lengthened back to nominal and the rear sweep pulled in by under a degree.

resultValid at 8.249 Wh/km — the best flown result of the generation, but it lands between its two parents rather than beyond them and remains 0.12 behind the 8.126 best-so-far, so no new winner. The parents have converged so tightly that crossover has almost nothing left to recombine, and the fact that this near-clone flew cleanly while every bolder sibling died on the web check says the population is trapped against a constraint rather than climbing a fitness ridge. Worth testing next: inject diversity deliberately — reseed several candidates from feasible but distant regions of the space instead of continuing to interbreed this cluster.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-opus-4-8

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.456	146.8	29.1°
cold_headwind	6.475	275.1	55.1°
crosswind	5.050	214.5	44.9°
gusty_light	4.561	193.7	53.8°
hot_thin	3.703	157.3	33.2°
storm	6.562	278.6	63.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.1°
rear sweep	39.8°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	30.2 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.73
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 2620b6573517

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.370 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.037 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.667 Wh/km
frame mass	87.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 28 via pivot

hypothesisThe parent was the second-best frame in the population at 8.156, only a hair off the leader, so this candidate probed whether the thin-arm consensus is a local trap and a beefier arm could still be competitive.

methodWidened the arms by about a quarter, raised the deck gap by 4 mm, and shaved the plate stock a little thinner to compensate for the added mass.

resultValid at 8.370 — worse than its 8.156 parent and short of the 8.126 best-so-far, so not a winner, though it is the second-best flown design of the generation. The uniform degradation across all six scenarios again points at added arm frontal area as the cost, and the plate-thinning compensation was nowhere near enough to offset it. Worth testing next: the same 4 mm deck-gap lift applied to the parent with arm width left untouched, since the deck change is the only part of this bet that has not yet been independently disproven.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-opus-4-8

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.483	148.0	29.2°
cold_headwind	6.610	280.7	55.8°
crosswind	5.117	217.4	45.2°
gusty_light	4.615	196.1	54.7°
hot_thin	3.729	158.4	33.4°
storm	6.667	283.0	64.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.97
arm width	×0.96
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.3°
rear sweep	36.5°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	34.2 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b4288e3e2847

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.507 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.117 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.780 Wh/km
frame mass	95.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 28 via pivot

hypothesisSibling to the tall-deck attempt from the same 8.232 parent, this one bet the opposite way on structure: that the lineage had gone too far toward flimsy, over-waisted arms, and that adding material back would pay for itself in the windy scenarios where the leaders' margin is thinnest.

methodFattened the arm waist by about a third and the arm width slightly, and brought the plate stock back up to nearly full thickness.

resultValid but clearly worse — 8.507 Wh/km against the parent's 8.232 and the 8.126 best-so-far, so no new winner. The extra material cost energy in every single scenario, including the calm baseline, which says the penalty is plain mass and frontal area rather than anything weather-specific; whatever robustness it bought never showed up as efficiency. Worth testing next: add material back only in the arm waist while keeping the plate thin, to see whether the two penalties can be separated.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-opus-4-8

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.540	150.4	29.2°
cold_headwind	6.714	285.1	55.7°
crosswind	5.186	220.3	45.1°
gusty_light	4.691	199.3	54.5°
hot_thin	3.793	161.1	33.4°
storm	6.780	287.8	64.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.97
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.74
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.4°
rear sweep	41.4°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	32.8 mm
battery wedge	14.6°
plate thickness	×0.97
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 43b307aa867f✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.271 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.539 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.463 Wh/km
frame mass	117.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 28 via designer

hypothesisA hand-authored design injected to break the population out of its thin-plate, short-arm rut, betting that a large lifting body with a strongly raked rear and modest arms would trade a little mass for a real aerodynamic win in the headwind and storm scenarios where the whole pack is weakest.

methodBuilt directly rather than from parents: a much larger plate (about 30 percent longer and 25 percent wider), rear sweep pushed to 50 degrees, front sweep at its 30-degree minimum, and moderately waisted 4.5 mm arms.

resultValid but poor at 9.271 Wh/km, well behind both the 8.126 best-so-far and every flown evolved candidate this generation. The oversized plate was punished hardest exactly where it was meant to help — cold headwind and storm are its two worst scenarios by a wide margin — so the big-body-as-lifting-surface theory does not survive contact with the model: area is drag here, not lift. Worth testing next: keep the aggressive 50-degree rear rake but put it on a stock-sized plate, since sweep and plate size were confounded in this design.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-opus-4-8

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.722	158.1	29.5°
cold_headwind	7.463	316.2	57.5°
crosswind	5.657	240.3	48.5°
gusty_light	5.037	214.0	58.5°
hot_thin	3.979	169.0	34.0°
storm	7.377	312.6	66.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.05
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.70
arm thickness	4.5 mm
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	50.0°
plate length	×1.30
plate width	×1.25
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	12.0°
plate thickness	×0.78
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate ade558456ae4✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.838 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.853 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.970 Wh/km
frame mass	121.7 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 28 via designer

hypothesisA second hand-authored injection, this one a deliberate control: a conservative, near-stock, structurally generous printed-nylon frame, meant to test whether the population's relentless drift toward thin plates and skinny arms is genuinely paying off or is just an artefact of the search.

methodBuilt directly with full-thickness plates at stock dimensions, heavy 7 mm arms, a fat waist, a shallow battery wedge, and printed carbon-filled nylon in place of the carbon plate.

resultValid but the worst result of the generation at 9.838 Wh/km, roughly 1.7 Wh/km behind the best-so-far and losing in every scenario. As a control it does its job: it confirms the thin-and-skinny drift is real and worth about 20 percent of the energy budget, and that printed nylon is a genuine loser rather than an under-explored option. Worth testing next: hold this frame's geometry exactly and swap only the material back to carbon plate, to separate how much of the 1.7 Wh/km gap is material and how much is the heavy arms.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-opus-4-8

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.832	162.8	30.1°
cold_headwind	7.970	336.7	58.1°
crosswind	6.034	256.3	49.5°
gusty_light	5.326	226.2	59.7°
hot_thin	4.092	173.9	34.9°
storm	7.866	332.3	65.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.05
arm width	×1.05
arm waist	×0.90
arm thickness	7.0 mm
front sweep	31.4°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	8.0°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	pa12_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 8cab9595d797

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_top 1.26 mm, stock 1.75 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	85.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 28 via pivot

hypothesisIts parent was a strong lightweight frame sitting just 0.1 Wh/km off the leader, and the run had stalled around thin, narrow-armed plates, so this candidate bet that lifting the electronics deck higher would clean up airflow between the plates without paying a mass penalty.

methodRaised the deck gap by about 8 mm (33 to 41 mm), trimmed the plate width back to stock, nudged the front arms 0.5 degrees further swept, and shaved the plate stock very slightly thinner.

resultInvalid before it ever flew: the top plate came out at 1.26 mm against a 1.75 mm minimum web, so the manufacturability check killed it. The lesson is that plate thickness in this lineage is already scraping the floor, and any further shave — even a nominal one — is fatal regardless of how good the aerodynamic bet is. Worth testing next: repeat the tall-deck idea but hold plate thickness fixed at the parent's value so the deck-gap effect can be measured in isolation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-opus-4-8

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.96
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.1°
rear sweep	41.2°
plate length	×0.93
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	40.9 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.78
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a85e6980793b

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	94.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 28 via pivot

hypothesisThe parent was a competent mid-pack frame and the population had converged on short arms, so this candidate made an aggressive two-way bet that a much wider motor stance plus a low, squat body would cut drag by more than the extra arm mass costs.

methodStretched the arms by roughly a quarter of their length, dropped the deck gap from 30 mm to 20 mm, thickened the arm waist substantially, and narrowed the plate.

resultInvalid: a 20 mm deck gap simply does not leave room for the flight controller and ESC stack, so the design never reached evaluation. That is a hard packaging floor rather than a structural one, which means the low-profile-body direction is bounded somewhere in the low 20s of millimetres and cannot be pushed past it. Worth testing next: keep the long-arm, narrow-plate half of this bet but pin the deck gap at the smallest value that actually clears the stack.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-opus-4-8

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.25
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.83
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	40.4°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×0.85
deck gap	20.4 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 1a586f0dc9ed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	109.5 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 28 via pivot

hypothesisThis parent was a weak, chunky outlier well behind the pack, so rather than refine it the candidate swung for a different regime entirely — a stiff printed-composite frame with heavy arms that might hold up better in the storm and gusty scenarios than the thin plate designs.

methodWidened the arms by about a third, pulled the rear sweep in by 3 degrees and the front sweep by 1 degree, and switched the body material to printed carbon-filled nylon.

resultInvalid: the fattened arm roots overlapped each other where they bolt onto the main plate. The collision teaches that arm width and sweep are coupled — you cannot fatten arms without opening the sweep angles to make room at the hub, and this candidate did the opposite on both counts. Worth testing next: the same heavy-arm, printed-nylon regime but with the rear sweep pushed out past 40 degrees to buy clearance at the root.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-opus-4-8

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.98
arm width	×1.33
arm waist	×0.86
arm thickness	6.2 mm
front sweep	30.9°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	31.0 mm
battery wedge	14.0°
plate thickness	×0.83
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 3fc66ed6aa29

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_top 0.97 mm, stock 1.75 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	120.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 28 via pivot

hypothesisThe parent was one of the worst performers in the pool — a long-armed, flat-battery design nearly 1.7 Wh/km off the pace — so this candidate tried to rescue that lineage by shrinking and compacting the body around its already-wide motor stance.

methodShortened the main plate by about a tenth, dropped the deck gap by 5 mm, opened the rear sweep by 2.6 degrees, and widened the arms slightly.

resultInvalid: shrinking the plate collapsed the top web to 0.97 mm against a 1.75 mm floor — the most severe web violation of the generation. The pattern is now unmistakable: shrinking plate length while plate thickness is already scaled below about 0.8 always breaches the web minimum, because the web depends on both. Worth testing next: make plate thickness a dependent variable that rises automatically whenever plate length or width shrinks, so these compaction bets can actually get airborne.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-opus-4-8

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.22
arm width	×1.09
arm waist	×1.00
arm thickness	4.5 mm
front sweep	32.1°
rear sweep	39.6°
plate length	×0.89
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	25.4 mm
battery wedge	3.6°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 0448ff61ccd9

click to open the 3D model

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	80.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 28 via pivot

hypothesisThis is the reigning champion's own child, and it makes the most valuable bet available: that the leader still carries excess plate area, and that a smaller, more sharply rear-swept body would shave off the last of the parasitic drag holding it at 8.126.

methodShrank the plate in both directions by roughly a tenth, swung the rear sweep out sharply from 37.5 to 45.6 degrees, and pulled the front sweep back to its 30-degree minimum.

resultInvalid — the main plate web fell to 1.51 mm against a 1.90 mm floor. This is the most instructive failure of the run: the champion sits directly on the manufacturability boundary, so the single most obvious improvement direction — trim more plate — is closed off unless thickness moves up with it. Worth testing next: the identical sweep change on the champion with plate size held constant, to find out whether the rear-sweep opening alone was carrying any of the hoped-for gain.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-opus-4-8

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	45.6°
plate length	×0.89
plate width	×0.87
deck gap	31.0 mm
battery wedge	14.4°
plate thickness	×0.79
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a9a4772b0de5

click to open the 3D model

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	91.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 28 via crossover

hypothesisA recombination of an unevaluated experimental frame with a proven 8.171 performer, betting that the good parent's efficient proportions could be inherited nearly wholesale while picking up a slightly thicker arm from the other side for storm stiffness.

methodA very gentle blend — plate stock shaved a few percent thinner, arm thickness trimmed a tenth of a millimetre, front sweep nudged two-tenths of a degree.

resultInvalid despite being one of the mildest edits of the generation: the main web landed at 1.45 mm against a 1.90 mm floor. That a change this small can be fatal confirms the constraint is not being violated by bold moves — the entire neighbourhood the population is exploring already sits outside the feasible region on plate thickness. Worth testing next: raise the population's hard floor on the plate-thickness gene so crossover stops producing children that are dead on arrival.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-opus-4-8

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.97
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.8 mm
front sweep	32.3°
rear sweep	38.1°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×0.85
deck gap	29.5 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.73
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate aa36468d347f

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_top 1.23 mm, stock 1.75 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	82.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 28 via crossover

hypothesisAnother blend of two top-tier survivors, betting that a slightly shorter body borrowed from the leaner parent would trim frontal area without disturbing the arm geometry the two parents already agree on.

methodOne single change: the main plate shortened by about five percent.

resultInvalid on the narrowest possible margin — one gene moved, and the top web dropped to 1.23 mm against a 1.75 mm floor. This is the cleanest demonstration yet that plate length is currently unmovable downward: a five percent trim with nothing else touched is enough to breach the web. Worth testing next: pair every plate-length reduction with a matching plate-thickness increase and check whether the net mass change is even favourable — the compaction idea may turn out to be not just infeasible but pointless.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-opus-4-8

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.97
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.1°
rear sweep	40.6°
plate length	×0.95
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	30.3 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.74
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d14f60a738f4

click to open the 3D model

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	83.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 28 via crossover

hypothesisA blend of two closely matched 8.2-class survivors, betting that a markedly shorter body plus a small relaxation of the arm waist would find a lighter operating point than either parent had reached on its own.

methodShortened the plate by roughly eight percent, pulled the rear sweep in by 2 degrees, and made small upward nudges to the arm waist and deck gap.

resultInvalid: the mid-plate web came out at 1.11 mm against a 1.47 mm floor. Notice it failed on the mid plate while its siblings failed on the top and main plates — every plate in the stack is independently near its own limit, so there is no single weak plate to shore up. Worth testing next: report the tightest web margin alongside fitness for every valid design, so the search can see how close its survivors are to the cliff instead of only discovering it on death.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-opus-4-8

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	32.6°
rear sweep	39.4°
plate length	×0.85
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	33.7 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.79
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 8cc40ad1b47f

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.16 mm, stock 1.47 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	98.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 28 via crossover

hypothesisA recombination of two unevaluated experimental frames, both far outside the converged cluster — a deliberate diversity injection betting that a very wide motor stance combined with a tall, airy body might open up a different efficiency regime altogether.

methodStretched the arms to about a quarter longer than stock, pushed the deck gap to 45 mm (the tallest of the generation), and slightly lengthened the plate and opened the front sweep.

resultInvalid on the mid-plate web at 1.16 mm against a 1.47 mm floor, so the exploratory regime went untested. Frustratingly, the very same thin-plate gene that both experimental parents happened to carry is what killed the child, which means this diversity injection was never actually independent of the cluster's fatal trait. Worth testing next: rebuild the long-arm, tall-deck concept from scratch with plate thickness set near full stock, accepting the mass penalty just to get one valid data point from that corner of the space.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-opus-4-8

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.26
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.1 mm
front sweep	32.5°
rear sweep	43.3°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×0.87
deck gap	45.0 mm
battery wedge	14.3°
plate thickness	×0.74
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 501d7866191e

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.171 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.926 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.491 Wh/km
frame mass	84.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 27 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the reigning best-so-far champion with an unscored lineage tests whether blending in different traits could push past the current record.

methodArm width widened slightly from x0.75 to x0.79, plate thickness raised from x0.72 to x0.75, plate length trimmed from x1.00 to x0.99, and arm length lengthened from x0.93 to x0.94.

resultFitness landed at 8.171 — close to but not beating the 8.126 best-so-far, and slightly worse than its 8.126 champion parent. The null-fitness parent didn't contribute anything beneficial; the result is essentially champion-adjacent noise. Worth testing: dial plate thickness back toward x0.72 to shed mass while staying inside the constraint margins.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.454	146.7	29.0°
cold_headwind	6.382	271.1	54.8°
crosswind	5.004	212.6	44.7°
gusty_light	4.525	192.2	53.4°
hot_thin	3.699	157.1	33.1°
storm	6.491	275.6	63.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.94
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	32.8°
rear sweep	37.5°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	31.5 mm
battery wedge	14.5°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 7aedc177cdfb

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.232 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.959 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.546 Wh/km
frame mass	84.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 27 via mutation

hypothesisThe parent was a solid mid-pack performer, so this mutation makes a small bet that loosening the deck gap and slimming the arm waist trims a bit more drag or mass.

methodDeck gap widened from 30.4mm to 33.2mm and arm waist multiplier slimmed from x0.57 to x0.55, with everything else unchanged.

resultFitness came in at 8.232, essentially flat versus the parent's 8.227 and well off the best-so-far 8.126. The small tweak had negligible effect across all scenarios. Suggests this local region of the genome is fairly flat; worth testing a larger, more decisive perturbation here instead of micro-mutations.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.470	147.4	29.1°
cold_headwind	6.446	273.8	54.7°
crosswind	5.022	213.4	44.6°
gusty_light	4.557	193.6	53.4°
hot_thin	3.713	157.8	33.2°
storm	6.546	277.9	62.9°

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	32.6°
rear sweep	41.3°
plate length	×0.93
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	33.2 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.79
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate dc9e7275a2b2

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.254 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.969 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.569 Wh/km
frame mass	83.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 27 via pivot

hypothesisWith the parent close to the best-so-far mark, this pivot makes a conservative bet that a bit more rear sweep could shave drag in the storm/crosswind scenarios without disturbing the rest of the design.

methodRear sweep nudged up from 37.4° to 40.6° and battery wedge nudged from 14.8° to 15.0°, with everything else essentially unchanged.

resultFitness came in at 8.254, worse than the parent's 8.156 and short of the best-so-far 8.126, driven mainly by a rise in storm (6.57) and cold_headwind (6.49) consumption. The extra rear sweep apparently added drag in the harsher scenarios rather than helping, suggesting this branch's rear sweep is already near a local optimum. Worth testing: pull rear sweep back toward 37° and instead vary arm thickness or plate proportions on this same parent.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.462	147.1	29.1°
cold_headwind	6.492	275.8	55.3°
crosswind	5.031	213.8	44.9°
gusty_light	4.558	193.6	54.0°
hot_thin	3.705	157.4	33.3°
storm	6.569	278.9	63.8°

gene	value
arm length	×0.97
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.1°
rear sweep	40.6°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	30.3 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.74
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a33f14634228

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.059 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.424 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.270 Wh/km
frame mass	97.4 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 27 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two mid-pack performers on a PA12-CF composite frame tests whether blending their moderate arm-waist and deck-gap traits could close the gap to the cf_plate leaders.

methodArm waist thickened from x0.80 to x0.84, deck gap tightened from 32.0mm to 30.6mm, plate width narrowed from x1.00 to x0.98, and plate thickness thinned from x0.85 to x0.82.

resultFitness came in at 9.059, worse than both parents and far off the best-so-far 8.126 across every scenario (cold_headwind 7.27, storm 7.23). The PA12-CF material choice likely carries a density or stiffness penalty relative to the cf_plate frames dominating the top of the pool, masking whatever benefit the geometry tweaks offered. Worth testing: rerun this exact geometry in cf_plate to isolate material effect from shape effect.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.637	154.5	29.7°
cold_headwind	7.270	308.4	57.0°
crosswind	5.570	236.6	47.6°
gusty_light	4.953	210.4	57.4°
hot_thin	3.884	165.0	34.3°
storm	7.232	306.6	66.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.84
arm thickness	6.3 mm
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	30.6 mm
battery wedge	14.0°
plate thickness	×0.82
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 7663444320d8✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.858 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.815 Wh/km
worst scenario	8.086 Wh/km
frame mass	122.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 27 via designer

hypothesisWith the population converging tightly around the ~8.1-8.2 basin, the designer seeds a fresh, out-of-distribution candidate — long, wide, thick arms with a near-flat battery wedge — to probe whether a heavier, stiffer frame opens a new performance basin.

methodBuilt from scratch (no parents) with arm length x1.22, arm width x1.05, arm waist x1.00, arm thickness 4.5mm, a near-flat 3.0° battery wedge, and default plate proportions.

resultFitness came in at 9.858, well behind the best-so-far 8.126 and worse than nearly every other candidate this generation, with storm at 7.89 and cold_headwind at 8.09. The oversized, thick arms added drag and mass without any efficiency payoff, confirming the converged basin near the champion's proportions remains the better bet for now. Worth testing: use future designer slots for a smaller, targeted perturbation near the champion rather than a full geometric reset.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.737	158.8	30.0°
cold_headwind	8.086	340.8	59.1°
crosswind	5.899	250.6	49.8°
gusty_light	5.264	223.6	61.2°
hot_thin	4.020	170.8	34.8°
storm	7.885	332.8	64.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.22
arm width	×1.05
arm waist	×1.00
arm thickness	4.5 mm
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	3.0°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 1134a413f0fd

click to open the 3D model

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	102.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 27 via pivot

hypothesisThe parent sat just above the leading edge of the pool, so this pivot bets that a much sharper rear sweep paired with beefier arms could trade a little length for better load distribution and lower drag.

methodRear sweep swung up from 37.4° to 48.1°, arms thickened from 4.0mm to 5.4mm, plate thickness multiplier raised from x0.74 to x0.86, and arm length trimmed from x0.97 to x0.89.

resultInvalid before flight testing: the main plate web thinned to 1.20mm against a 1.90mm minimum, so shortening the arms while sweeping the rear harder ate into the plate's structural margin faster than the thickness bump could restore. Teaches that arm-length cuts and aggressive rear sweep compound against plate-web constraints even when plate thickness is raised. Worth testing: keep the sweep increase but hold arm length at the parent's x0.97 to see if that alone clears the web-thickness floor.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.89
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	5.4 mm
front sweep	32.9°
rear sweep	48.1°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×0.96
deck gap	30.3 mm
battery wedge	14.8°
plate thickness	×0.86
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b169637eb616

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	86.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 27 via pivot

hypothesisThe parent was a clear underperformer, so this pivot bets that pulling in a notably long arm while thickening the waist and width could cut mass and close the efficiency gap.

methodArm length cut sharply from x1.20 to x0.87, arm waist thickened from x0.55 to x0.63, arm width widened from x0.75 to x0.81, and deck gap opened from 34.0mm to 35.7mm.

resultInvalid: rotor disks overlap on tip clearance. Shortening the arm that far while simultaneously widening it left insufficient room for the props despite the wider deck gap. Teaches that this genome can't absorb such a large length cut without also shrinking prop diameter or opening the deck gap further. Worth testing: a smaller length cut (e.g. x0.95) combined with a bigger deck-gap increase.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.87
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.63
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	31.9°
rear sweep	38.8°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	35.7 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.77
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 159702994b2c

click to open the 3D model

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	93.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 27 via pivot

hypothesisSitting near the best-so-far cluster, this pivot bets that narrowing the plate while thickening the arms could shed mass without compromising strength.

methodPlate width narrowed from x0.98 to x0.85, arm thickness raised from 4.0mm to 4.9mm, plate thickness multiplier raised from x0.74 to x0.78, and front sweep trimmed slightly from 32.9° to 32.1°.

resultInvalid: the main plate web thinned to 1.45mm against the 1.90mm floor. Narrowing the plate ate into the web faster than the modest thickness increase could offset. Teaches plate width and plate thickness are tightly coupled near the manufacturability limit for this frame family. Worth testing: keep plate width close to the parent's x0.98 and isolate the arm-thickening change alone.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.97
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.9 mm
front sweep	32.1°
rear sweep	38.2°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×0.85
deck gap	29.5 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.78
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 49fc02f7b684

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	99.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 27 via pivot

hypothesisThe parent itself never returned a valid fitness, so this pivot tries a more compact, steeply-swept redesign to escape whatever geometry problem doomed it.

methodDeck gap tightened from 41.3mm to 29.7mm, arm length cut from x1.21 to x0.93, front sweep increased from 30.0° to 39.0°, and plate thickness raised from x0.70 to x0.90.

resultInvalid again: rotor disks overlap. Shortening the arms while also tightening the deck gap left the props with no clearance, repeating the parent's likely failure mode in a different form. Teaches that this lineage needs deck gap to grow, not shrink, whenever arm length is cut. Worth testing: keep the shorter arm length but widen deck gap well past 34mm.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.93
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.4 mm
front sweep	39.0°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.13
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	29.7 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.90
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 6e39bd323a4a

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	145.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 27 via pivot

hypothesisThe parent was badly off the pace at 10.389, so this pivot bets that trimming arm length and flattening the battery wedge could cut drag and mass enough to matter.

methodArm length cut from x1.00 to x0.81, battery wedge flattened from 2.5° to 0.2°, plate thickness raised from x0.77 to x0.90, and deck gap widened slightly from 42.1mm to 43.9mm.

resultInvalid: rotor disks overlap. The parent already carried oversized arm width (x1.15) and waist (x1.05), so cutting arm length pushed the props too close together despite the small deck-gap increase. Teaches this wide-arm branch can't tolerate further length cuts without first slimming arm width/waist. Worth testing: shrink arm width/waist before attempting another length cut on this lineage.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.81
arm width	×1.15
arm waist	×1.05
arm thickness	5.6 mm
front sweep	31.4°
rear sweep	46.8°
plate length	×1.22
plate width	×1.23
deck gap	43.9 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.90
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate c54816f31739

click to open the 3D model

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	92.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 27 via pivot

hypothesisThe parent underperformed at 8.644, so this pivot bets that opening the deck gap and rear sweep while trimming plate width could lower drag.

methodDeck gap widened from 34.0mm to 43.2mm, plate width narrowed from x1.00 to x0.87, rear sweep increased from 37.0° to 43.2°, and arm width widened from x0.75 to x0.89.

resultInvalid: the mid plate web thinned to 1.15mm against a 1.47mm minimum. Narrowing plate width without a compensating thickness increase broke the print constraint, echoing the same failure mode seen elsewhere this generation. Teaches that any plate-width narrowing needs an explicit plate-thickness increase paired with it. Worth testing: repeat this deck-gap/rear-sweep combo but hold plate width near x1.00 or add a thickness bump.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.14
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.1 mm
front sweep	31.9°
rear sweep	43.2°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×0.87
deck gap	43.2 mm
battery wedge	14.4°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 736d0ed83bff

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.39 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	87.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 27 via crossover

hypothesisSelf-crossing the reigning champion tests whether extra rear sweep and slightly thicker structure could push the record lower.

methodRear sweep increased from 37.5° to 41.9°, plate width narrowed from x1.00 to x0.97, plate thickness raised from x0.72 to x0.79, and arm thickness raised from 4.0mm to 4.2mm.

resultInvalid: the main plate web thinned to 1.39mm despite the higher thickness multiplier, because narrowing plate width alongside the sweep change ate the margin faster than thickness could restore. Teaches that even the champion genome sits close to the plate-width constraint boundary. Worth testing: apply the rear-sweep increase alone, holding plate width at x1.00.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.93
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.2 mm
front sweep	32.9°
rear sweep	41.9°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.97
deck gap	31.6 mm
battery wedge	14.5°
plate thickness	×0.79
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 9321bb712257

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — cold_headwind: battery pack cannot deliver demanded power
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	136.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 27 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two weak lineages — one unscored, one at 10.389 — was a long-shot bet that combining their traits might still produce a flyable, if unremarkable, design.

methodPlate length trimmed from x0.98 to x0.93, rear sweep reduced from 37.0° to 35.8°, arm length nudged up from x1.18 to x1.20, and arm thickness raised from 4.1mm to 4.3mm, while inheriting the parents' oversized arm width and near-flat battery wedge.

resultInvalid: in the cold_headwind scenario the battery pack couldn't deliver the demanded power. The oversized, heavy frame inherited from both weak parents combined with a near-zero battery wedge pushed power draw past what the pack could supply. Teaches this cross carried too much inherited mass to be viable. Worth testing: cut arm width and waist substantially before attempting this cross again.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.20
arm width	×1.40
arm waist	×1.14
arm thickness	4.3 mm
front sweep	32.1°
rear sweep	35.8°
plate length	×0.93
plate width	×1.10
deck gap	38.4 mm
battery wedge	1.2°
plate thickness	×0.83
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 3da43350fbc4

click to open the 3D model

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	96.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 27 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing a decent performer with a weak one bets on inheriting thicker, sturdier arms while keeping the better parent's compact plate footprint.

methodPlate length shortened from x0.93 to x0.85, arm thickness raised from 4.0mm to 4.6mm, plate thickness raised from x0.79 to x0.90, and arm width widened from x0.75 to x0.83.

resultInvalid: the mid plate web thinned to 1.11mm against a 1.47mm minimum. Shrinking plate length ate into the mid-web faster than the thickness increase could compensate. Teaches that plate_mid, not just plate_main, becomes the binding constraint when plate length is cut. Worth testing: keep the arm-thickening change but leave plate length at the parent's x0.93.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.6 mm
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	40.9°
plate length	×0.85
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	30.8 mm
battery wedge	14.7°
plate thickness	×0.90
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 5cbc929e749b

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.227 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.955 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.543 Wh/km
frame mass	84.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 26 via crossover

hypothesisA self-crossover of the strong 4d8f50d282cf (8.226) with itself, essentially a fine-grained mutation test to see if a tiny material blend and sweep nudge could edge past the 8.126 best-so-far.

methodBlended in a small fraction of alternate material and reduced rear sweep by a fraction of a degree, leaving everything else unchanged.

resultFitness came in at 8.227, a hair worse than the parent and still short of the 8.126 best-so-far — essentially a null result confirming this design sits at a local optimum for these two genes. Since 4d8f50d282cf and its close variants keep clustering just above 8.126, the next test should perturb a gene this lineage hasn't touched yet (e.g., deck gap or arm thickness) rather than continuing to fine-tune material/sweep.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.467	147.3	29.1°
cold_headwind	6.445	273.8	54.8°
crosswind	5.014	213.0	44.6°
gusty_light	4.552	193.4	53.5°
hot_thin	3.711	157.6	33.2°
storm	6.543	277.8	63.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	32.6°
rear sweep	41.3°
plate length	×0.93
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	30.4 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.79
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 669b204e3a87✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.644 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.193 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.902 Wh/km
frame mass	91.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 26 via designer

hypothesisA Claude-designed candidate built from scratch (no parents), betting that a longer, narrower, more tapered arm geometry with a steep battery wedge could compete with the evolved population's best performers.

methodHand-set arm length 20% longer than baseline, arms 25% narrower, waist taper tightened to 55%, thin 4.0 mm arm walls, and a steep 15° battery wedge, using carbon-fiber plate.

resultFitness came in at 8.644 — a respectable, near-competitive result but still short of the 8.126 best-so-far, with cold_headwind (6.89) and storm (6.9) as the main cost drivers. This shows the designer's long-and-narrow-arm hypothesis is directionally sound but not yet tuned enough to win; worth trying a version with slightly thicker arms to reduce flex losses in the storm scenario while keeping the length/taper choices.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.533	150.1	29.4°
cold_headwind	6.892	292.6	56.8°
crosswind	5.298	225.1	46.2°
gusty_light	4.752	201.9	56.1°
hot_thin	3.783	160.7	33.8°
storm	6.902	292.9	65.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.20
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	34.0 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate bb057bd112dc

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.932 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.342 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.179 Wh/km
frame mass	95.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 26 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two solid mid-pack performers, 31a62df9ad14 (8.893) and 050011cbbfab (8.578), bets that combining their traits would beat both parents.

methodStarting from the 31a62df9ad14 baseline, shrank plate length by ~6%, blended in a touch of alternate material, softened battery wedge slightly, and increased rear sweep by about a degree.

resultFitness came in at 8.932, worse than both parents and well off the 8.126 best-so-far. The crossover didn't cleanly inherit whatever made 050011cbbfab decent — cold_headwind (7.18) and storm (7.13) stayed high, suggesting the combination diluted each parent's strengths. Worth trying a crossover that keeps more of 050011cbbfab's genes dominant instead of using 31a62df9ad14 as the base.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.585	152.3	29.7°
cold_headwind	7.179	304.6	57.1°
crosswind	5.450	231.5	47.5°
gusty_light	4.876	207.1	57.4°
hot_thin	3.835	162.9	34.2°
storm	7.129	302.3	66.3°

gene	value
arm length	×1.31
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	38.1°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	14.3°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 5040a875fdc8✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.009 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.399 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.220 Wh/km
frame mass	97.1 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 26 via designer

hypothesisA second Claude-designed candidate, betting that thicker arms and a different material (pa12_cf) could trade some weight for durability/efficiency gains in the harsher scenarios.

methodHand-set arm length 5% shorter than baseline, arms 10% narrower, moderate waist taper, thick 6.2 mm arm walls, a shallower 14° battery wedge, and switched to pa12_cf material.

resultFitness came in at 9.009, clearly worse than its sibling design (669b204e3a87 at 8.644) and well off the 8.126 best-so-far, with cold_headwind (7.22) and storm (7.19) again the biggest costs. The thicker arms and pa12_cf material likely added mass without a compensating efficiency gain; the next designer attempt should keep the thinner 4.0 mm arm wall and cf_plate material from the better sibling, but explore the shorter arm length independently.

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	29.7°
cold_headwind	7.220	306.3	57.0°
crosswind	5.547	235.6	47.5°
gusty_light	4.931	209.5	57.2°
hot_thin	3.875	164.6	34.3°
storm	7.193	305.0	66.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.80
arm thickness	6.2 mm
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	14.0°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	pa12_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 145d8653720b

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	10.297 Wh/km
scenario mean	6.129 Wh/km
worst scenario	8.337 Wh/km
frame mass	156.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 26 via pivot

hypothesisParent 5d1e320c8615 was a heavy underperformer (10.296), well above the best-so-far; this pivot bets that tilting the battery mount and trimming arm taper/sweep can claw back some of the cold-weather and storm power penalty.

methodAdded an 8° battery wedge tilt (was flat), slightly loosened arm waist taper, swept the front arms out a few more degrees, and trimmed arm width slightly.

resultFitness landed at 10.297, essentially unchanged from the parent and nowhere near the 8.126 best-so-far — cold_headwind (8.34) and storm (8.26) still dominate the cost, showing the battery tilt alone doesn't fix the underlying drag/power problem. This lineage looks saturated; worth abandoning battery-wedge-only tweaks here and trying a structural arm-length or sweep change to attack the storm/cold penalty directly.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	4.027	171.1	30.0°
cold_headwind	8.337	351.0	57.9°
crosswind	6.272	266.5	49.8°
gusty_light	5.570	236.6	59.8°
hot_thin	4.309	183.1	34.7°
storm	8.257	348.3	63.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×1.10
arm waist	×0.97
arm thickness	5.6 mm
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	46.9°
plate length	×1.20
plate width	×1.23
deck gap	40.1 mm
battery wedge	8.1°
plate thickness	×0.97
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate fa2acbceb6cc

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	10.389 Wh/km
scenario mean	6.152 Wh/km
worst scenario	8.473 Wh/km
frame mass	151.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 26 via pivot

hypothesisSame parent lineage as 145d8653720b (5d1e320c8615, 10.296); this sibling bets that thinning the plate and tightening front sweep, rather than tilting the battery aggressively, is the better lever.

methodAdded a small 2.5° battery wedge, thinned the plate by roughly 15% more, tightened front sweep by a couple degrees, and opened the deck gap slightly.

resultFitness came in at 10.389, slightly worse than the parent and far off the 8.126 best-so-far. Thinning the plate further didn't help and may have added flex penalties without addressing the storm and cold-headwind costs that dominate this lineage. This whole branch looks like a dead end — better to prune it and put pivots toward the stronger 4d8f50d282cf/31a62df9ad14 lineages.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.988	169.4	30.0°
cold_headwind	8.473	355.8	58.7°
crosswind	6.275	266.6	50.5°
gusty_light	5.580	237.0	61.1°
hot_thin	4.275	181.6	34.9°
storm	8.321	350.5	63.3°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×1.15
arm waist	×1.07
arm thickness	5.6 mm
front sweep	31.0°
rear sweep	47.3°
plate length	×1.21
plate width	×1.22
deck gap	42.1 mm
battery wedge	2.5°
plate thickness	×0.77
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate f2acea4ec6c2

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — cold_headwind: battery pack cannot deliver demanded power
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	132.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 26 via pivot

hypothesisParent 26133d96c55e (9.663) was mediocre; the bet was that lengthening the arms and widening the plate would improve efficiency enough to offset added mass.

methodStretched arm length by about 23%, widened the plate by 10%, thickened the arm wall slightly, and nudged the deck gap up half a millimeter.

resultInvalid — the battery can't deliver enough power to meet demand in the cold headwind scenario. The longer, heavier arms and wider plate raised power draw past what the pack supports at low temperature, a hard constraint rather than a fitness result. Worth testing next: keep the arm stretch but pair it with a lighter, thinner structure so cold-weather draw stays under the pack ceiling.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.18
arm width	×1.40
arm waist	×1.14
arm thickness	4.1 mm
front sweep	32.2°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.10
deck gap	38.6 mm
battery wedge	1.2°
plate thickness	×0.83
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d41ff8f3891a

click to open the 3D model

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	88.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 26 via pivot

hypothesisParent 4d8f50d282cf (8.226) was one of the strongest performers this generation; the bet was that softening rear sweep and blending in a bit of alternate material could shave more weight without sacrificing strength.

methodReduced rear sweep by about 6°, blended in a small fraction of a different material, shrank plate width by 5%, and opened arm waist taper slightly.

resultInvalid — the plate web came out at 1.49 mm, under the 1.90 mm manufacturing minimum. The combined width reduction and material blend thinned the load-bearing web past what's printable/structural. Lesson: don't stack plate-width cuts with material blending on this lineage — next try the rear-sweep and material change alone, leaving plate width untouched.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.65
arm thickness	4.2 mm
front sweep	33.1°
rear sweep	35.1°
plate length	×0.93
plate width	×0.97
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.79
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 381601803c83

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	104.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 26 via pivot

hypothesisParent 31a62df9ad14 (8.893) was mid-pack; this pivot bets that relaxing arm waist taper and widening the arms while shrinking the plate slightly could reduce drag from the narrow-arm geometry.

methodLoosened arm waist taper substantially, shrank plate length by about 9%, widened arms by roughly 16%, and reduced rear sweep by 3°.

resultInvalid — arm root tongues collide with the main plate. Widening the arms while shrinking the plate left no clearance at the tongue joints, a geometric conflict rather than a fitness loss. This is the second sibling from the same parent to fail this exact way (see 519fc048c761), so from this parent's baseline, loosening arm waist/width needs a compensating plate-length increase, not a decrease, to keep tongue clearance.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.80
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×0.96
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	40.1 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 519fc048c761

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	103.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 26 via pivot

hypothesisSame parent (31a62df9ad14, 8.893) as 381601803c83; this sibling bets that pairing arm widening with a plate-length increase (rather than a decrease) and a shorter arm length would avoid geometric conflicts while still cutting drag.

methodWidened arms by about 19%, grew plate length by 14%, shortened arm length by about 7%, and loosened arm waist taper.

resultInvalid — arm root tongues collide with the main plate, the same failure as its sibling despite the plate-length change going the opposite direction. This confirms the collision is driven mainly by the arm width/waist widening itself, not plate length — next pivot should widen arms more conservatively (a few percent at a time) to find the collision boundary rather than jumping straight to +19%.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.21
arm width	×0.89
arm waist	×0.67
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	37.2°
plate length	×1.14
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	41.3 mm
battery wedge	14.9°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate fe18ad9724dd

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	81.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 26 via pivot

hypothesisParent 56417773c65d (8.156) was very close to the best-so-far; the bet was that shortening the arms substantially would cut mass and drag enough to break through 8.126.

methodShortened arm length by about 23%, tightened front sweep by 3°, thickened the plate somewhat, and blended in a bit of alternate material.

resultInvalid — arm root tongues collide with the main plate. Shortening the arms that aggressively pulled the tongue root too close to the plate edge for clearance. Since this is a strong near-best parent, worth retrying with a much smaller arm-length cut (a few percent) rather than the large one tried here, isolating the safe shortening range.

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
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	37.4°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	33.1 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate fee25dabbb6e

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	87.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 26 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing an unscored/invalid parent (d459c523fccf) with the strong 4d8f50d282cf (8.226) bets that whatever trait kept d459c523fccf in the pool could combine safely with the near-best design.

methodStarting from 4d8f50d282cf, grew plate length by about 4%, thickened the plate slightly, softened rear sweep marginally, and nudged arm width down a hair.

resultInvalid — arm root tongues collide with the main plate, the same failure seen repeatedly this generation. This suggests 4d8f50d282cf already sits close to the tongue-clearance boundary, so small plate-length/thickness perturbations tip it over; future crossovers from this parent should avoid touching plate length and thickness together, varying sweep/wedge only instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.96
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	36.4°
plate length	×1.13
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	30.4 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 6cc487cfafab

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	121.6 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 26 via immigrant

hypothesisA fresh random immigrant, injecting unrelated geometry to test whether an aggressive high-sweep, thick-arm design in an alternate material (pet_cf) could open a new region of the search space.

methodRandomly generated with high front/rear sweep (about 50°), thick 6.8 mm arms, a wide plate, and pet_cf material instead of carbon-fiber plate.

resultInvalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate entirely, a different and more severe failure than the tongue-collision seen elsewhere. The extreme sweep angles combined with the plate proportions moved the bolt pattern clean off the plate footprint, showing this random draw landed outside the geometrically feasible envelope. Future immigrants should probably be capped under ~45° sweep until the bolt-pattern/plate-footprint relationship is better mapped.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.97
arm width	×1.00
arm waist	×0.72
arm thickness	6.8 mm
front sweep	49.5°
rear sweep	51.1°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×1.22
deck gap	32.4 mm
battery wedge	10.7°
plate thickness	×0.81
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 7e950dded23f

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	87.7 g
material	petg
born	generation 26 via immigrant

hypothesisAnother random immigrant, testing a short-arm, extreme-rear-sweep design in petg material with a tight deck gap, to see if a very different silhouette could compete.

methodRandomly generated with short arms, a steep 57.7° rear sweep, a long plate, a tight 22.6 mm deck gap, and petg material.

resultInvalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate, the same failure mode as the other immigrant this generation. The combination of steep rear sweep and tight deck gap again pushed the bolt pattern off the plate. Two immigrants failing identically this way strongly suggests the random generator's sweep-angle range needs tightening before spending more immigrants on this failure mode.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.77
arm width	×1.01
arm waist	×0.93
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	36.2°
rear sweep	57.7°
plate length	×1.18
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	22.6 mm
battery wedge	10.6°
plate thickness	×1.13
material	petg

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 4d8f50d282cf

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.226 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.954 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.543 Wh/km
frame mass	84.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 25 via pivot

hypothesisParent 88ecfdffbc69 sat close to the leaders at 8.192; the bet was trimming plate length while boosting rear sweep for better weight distribution and yaw authority.

methodPlate length cut 7%, rear sweep increased by about 3.7°, plate thickened slightly, arm waist widened.

resultValid at 8.226 but slightly worse than the parent (8.192) and off best-so-far (8.126) — not a new winner. The added rear sweep likely raised drag in cold_headwind (6.44) and storm (6.54) more than the plate trim saved. Next: try the plate-length trim alone, without the rear-sweep increase, since sweep growth looks like the drag culprit.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.467	147.3	29.1°
cold_headwind	6.442	273.6	54.8°
crosswind	5.014	213.0	44.6°
gusty_light	4.552	193.4	53.4°
hot_thin	3.710	157.6	33.2°
storm	6.543	277.8	63.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	32.6°
rear sweep	41.4°
plate length	×0.93
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	30.4 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.79
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 9f988e1f964b

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.301 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.997 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.607 Wh/km
frame mass	86.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 25 via crossover

hypothesisThis crossover combined two near-best parents (8.161 and 8.156), betting that merging their genomes plus a slightly wider arm waist could push past the plateau.

methodArm waist widened modestly and arm length lengthened marginally, with nearly everything else held near the fitter parent's values.

resultValid at 8.301 but worse than both parents and off best-so-far (8.126) — not a new winner. The wider waist likely added mass or drag without a stiffness payoff, visible in storm (6.61) and cold_headwind (6.54). This plateau looks sensitive to arm-waist increases. Next: repeat the crossover but hold arm waist fixed at the fitter parent's value, exploring only 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	3.469	147.4	29.1°
cold_headwind	6.543	277.9	55.6°
crosswind	5.066	215.2	45.0°
gusty_light	4.582	194.7	54.4°
hot_thin	3.717	157.9	33.3°
storm	6.607	280.5	64.0°

gene	value
arm length	×0.98
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.63
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	32.9°
rear sweep	37.5°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	30.4 mm
battery wedge	14.6°
plate thickness	×0.76
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 050011cbbfab✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.578 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.144 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.869 Wh/km
frame mass	92.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 25 via designer

hypothesisThe designer probed a longer-arm design with a near-zero battery wedge angle, a sharp contrast to the ~14-15° wedge common in the pivot lineage, to see if a flatter battery mount changes the arm-length tradeoff.

methodSeeded arm length at 120%, slim 4 mm arms, a deep 38 mm deck gap, and battery wedge dropped to just 1° in cf_plate.

resultValid at 8.578 — better than the 130%-arm seed (8.893) but still well off best-so-far (8.126), showing that trimming arm length from 1.30x to 1.20x helps but doesn't close the gap alone. Storm (6.85) and cold_headwind (6.87) remain the dominant costs. Next: pair the low battery-wedge idea with the near-stock arm length (~0.9-0.98x) that's winning in the pivot lineage, rather than pushing wedge and length to extremes together.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.477	147.7	29.3°
cold_headwind	6.869	291.7	57.0°
crosswind	5.224	221.9	45.9°
gusty_light	4.698	199.6	56.3°
hot_thin	3.740	158.9	33.7°
storm	6.853	290.8	65.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.20
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 31a62df9ad14✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.893 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.327 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.132 Wh/km
frame mass	96.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 25 via designer

hypothesisWith the population plateaued near 8.13-8.19, the designer seeded a fresh, parentless long-arm design to test whether a much longer, slender arm geometry could open a new performance region.

methodSet arm length to 130% of stock with narrow width and waist and thin 4 mm arms, moderate sweep, near-stock plate, and a deep 40 mm deck gap in cf_plate.

resultValid at 8.893, clearly worse than best-so-far (8.126) and the mid-8 pivot lineage — the long arms add mass and drag (storm 7.10, cold_headwind 7.13) without enough offsetting benefit. This confirms the plateau's arm-length sweet spot sits near stock (~0.9-0.98x), not 1.3x. Next: have the designer seed a shorter-arm design instead, closer to the 0.87-0.98x range that keeps winning.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.584	152.3	29.6°
cold_headwind	7.132	302.6	57.1°
crosswind	5.450	231.5	47.5°
gusty_light	4.863	206.6	57.3°
hot_thin	3.835	162.9	34.1°
storm	7.097	301.0	66.3°

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 26133d96c55e

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.663 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.698 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.930 Wh/km
frame mass	114.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 25 via pivot

hypothesisParent 04c89a004a87 was a weak lineage far off the leaders (9.66); the bet was trading arm thickness for width to see if a thinner, wider arm cross-section could recover some efficiency.

methodArm width increased further, arm thickness cut from 4.6 mm to 4.0 mm, arm waist widened slightly, plate length trimmed 2%.

resultValid but essentially flat at 9.663 versus the parent's 9.66 — no improvement, and still nowhere near best-so-far (8.126). Storm and cold_headwind stayed the dominant costs (~7.7-7.9), suggesting this branch is stuck in a poor region that small width/thickness swaps can't escape. Next: abandon incremental tweaks on this lineage and try a bigger structural change like sweep angle instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.679	156.3	29.8°
cold_headwind	7.930	334.7	58.7°
crosswind	5.736	243.7	49.4°
gusty_light	5.152	218.9	60.6°
hot_thin	3.965	168.5	34.6°
storm	7.728	326.4	65.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.96
arm width	×1.40
arm waist	×1.13
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	32.2°
rear sweep	36.6°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.1 mm
battery wedge	1.3°
plate thickness	×0.83
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 5d1e320c8615

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	10.296 Wh/km
scenario mean	6.106 Wh/km
worst scenario	8.380 Wh/km
frame mass	155.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 25 via crossover

hypothesisThis crossover paired the reigning champion (96a6924c438d, 8.126) with a much weaker design (7920f2bd01ce, 10.333), betting the champion's genes would pull the offspring toward better performance.

methodPlate width widened further, battery wedge zeroed out, plate thickness trimmed slightly, arm width widened.

resultValid but poor at 10.296, barely better than the weak parent and far off the champion's 8.126 — the champion's genetics didn't dominate the blend. Every scenario reads worse than the champion, with the oversized plate, wide arms, and thick 5.5 mm arm section inherited from the weak parent likely overwhelming any benefit. Next: avoid crossing the champion with such a low-fitness partner; explore plate-width changes via a direct pivot on 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	3.983	169.2	29.9°
cold_headwind	8.380	352.3	58.3°
crosswind	6.219	264.2	50.0°
gusty_light	5.538	235.2	60.5°
hot_thin	4.274	181.6	34.7°
storm	8.244	347.6	63.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.99
arm width	×1.14
arm waist	×1.07
arm thickness	5.5 mm
front sweep	33.3°
rear sweep	46.9°
plate length	×1.20
plate width	×1.23
deck gap	40.9 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.92
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 0d93f164d14f

click to open the 3D model

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	83.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 25 via pivot

hypothesisParent 56417773c65d sat at 8.156, near the plateau leaders; the bet was to shrink the main plate footprint (narrower and shorter) while opening the deck gap, hoping to cut mass and drag without touching arm geometry much.

methodPlate width trimmed ~11%, plate length trimmed ~10%, deck gap opened by about 3 mm, arm width nudged up slightly.

resultInvalid: the plate web thinned to 1.52 mm, below the 1.90 mm stock minimum. Shrinking plate length and width simultaneously ate into structural margin faster than expected. Worth testing the same footprint shrink but with plate thickness ratio raised to compensate, so the web stays above spec.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.97
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.2 mm
front sweep	32.6°
rear sweep	37.1°
plate length	×0.90
plate width	×0.87
deck gap	33.5 mm
battery wedge	14.6°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate c624856bd036

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	91.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 25 via pivot

hypothesisParent 88ecfdffbc69 was close to the leaders at 8.192; the bet was to shorten the arms for less mass/drag while thickening them to preserve stiffness.

methodArm length cut about 10%, arm thickness increased from 4.0 to 4.5 mm, arm width and waist both widened slightly.

resultInvalid: the shorter arms pushed the rotor disks into overlap, violating tip clearance. This confirms arm length has a hard floor set by prop diameter that can't be traded against thickness. Next: try a much smaller arm-length cut (closer to x0.93) or pair it with reduced sweep to preserve clearance while still trimming mass.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.87
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.59
arm thickness	4.5 mm
front sweep	34.0°
rear sweep	37.9°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.76
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 0a50f7b619c9

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	90.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 25 via pivot

hypothesisParent ee1b99647533 was near-best at 8.161; the bet was to enlarge the deck gap and plate while flattening rear sweep, opening up the battery bay for cooling or balance gains.

methodDeck gap increased by ~8 mm, plate length grown 12%, rear sweep reduced by about 3.5°, arm waist widened slightly.

resultInvalid: the larger plate combined with the sweep change caused the arm root tongues to collide on the plate. Plate length and sweep clearly interact with arm-root placement and can't be pushed together. Next: isolate the deck-gap increase alone, without the plate-length/sweep changes, to see if it survives on its own.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.97
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	32.9°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.12
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	38.5 mm
battery wedge	14.5°
plate thickness	×0.76
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d459c523fccf

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	85.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 25 via pivot

hypothesisSame parent as the plate-shrink bet (56417773c65d, 8.156); this candidate instead bet on growing the plate and flattening the front sweep for a different frontal profile.

methodPlate length grown 9%, front sweep reduced by about 3°, arm width widened, plate thickness trimmed slightly.

resultInvalid: arm root tongues collided on the plate again, the same failure mode as candidate 0a50f7b619c9 but from a different parent. That makes plate-length growth combined with sweep changes a repeat offender for root-tongue collisions in this lineage. Next: hold plate length near stock while testing sweep changes alone to map the safe range.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.96
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	36.8°
plate length	×1.09
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	30.4 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate dd61182f18a2

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	65.7 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 25 via pivot

hypothesisParent 96a6924c438d is the reigning best-so-far (8.126); the bet was switching to a lighter PA12-CF material while widening the arms to compensate for its lower stiffness.

methodMaterial swapped from carbon-fiber plate to PA12-CF, arm width widened ~21%, deck gap increased 5 mm, battery wedge angle reduced about 1.7°.

resultInvalid: PA12-CF carries a higher minimum plate-thickness requirement (1.6 mm) than cf_plate, and the inherited plate thickness left it at only 1.4 mm. The arm reinforcement wasn't the limiting factor — the plate was. Next: retry this same material swap on the 8.126 champion but bump plate thickness enough to clear the 1.6 mm PA12-CF floor.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.93
arm width	×0.91
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.3°
rear sweep	38.1°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	36.6 mm
battery wedge	12.8°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 4f0ec9f96192

click to open the 3D model

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	84.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 25 via crossover

hypothesisOne crossover parent (d54a3aa990a2) was a strong 8.171 performer, the other unevaluated; the bet was blending a slimmer arm with the fitter parent's plate proportions to shave more mass.

methodArm width narrowed, plate thickness ratio trimmed further, material blend adjusted slightly, plate width trimmed marginally.

resultInvalid: the plate web again fell below the 1.90 mm stock minimum, down to 1.49 mm — the same failure family as the plate-shrink pivot earlier this generation. This is now a recurring pattern: pushing plate_thickness ratio below roughly 0.85 while also trimming arm/plate width breaches the web floor. Next: keep plate thickness ratio at or above ~0.85 whenever narrowing arm width or plate width together.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.90
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	32.7°
rear sweep	38.4°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.97
deck gap	30.7 mm
battery wedge	13.4°
plate thickness	×0.83
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 150b64c529de

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.98 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	87.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 25 via crossover

hypothesisThis crossover paired an unevaluated design with the strong 8.171 performer, betting a deeper deck gap and slightly wider arm waist would improve balance.

methodDeck gap increased 2.5 mm, material blend shifted, arm waist widened slightly, arm length lengthened marginally.

resultInvalid, and badly so: the plate web collapsed to just 0.98 mm, roughly half the 1.90 mm minimum — the worst structural violation this generation. The unvalidated parent likely carried an extreme plate-thickness gene that the crossover blend didn't dilute enough. Next: screen crossover parents' plate thickness before breeding, or bias the blend toward the validated parent's plate genes.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.98
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	39.6°
rear sweep	34.3°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×0.94
deck gap	31.5 mm
battery wedge	14.6°
plate thickness	×0.83
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate dcdebaa9fe02✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	95.0 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 25 via designer

hypothesisThe designer tested a stockier, thicker-armed PA12-CF build with no parent, betting a heavier-duty material choice might unlock a favorable stiffness/weight tradeoff outside the cf_plate plateau.

methodSeeded arm length at 110%, width 90%, waist 80%, and 5.5 mm thick arms in PA12-CF, with a 32 mm deck gap and 12° battery wedge.

resultInvalid: arm tip deflection exceeded limits under PA12-CF's lower stiffness, despite the thick 5.5 mm cross-section. Combined with dd61182f18a2's plate-thickness failure, PA12-CF keeps needing more material margin than cf_plate designs to pass constraints. Next: retry PA12-CF with either a shorter arm length (<1.0x) or an even thicker arm (6 mm+) to clear the deflection limit.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.10
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.80
arm thickness	5.5 mm
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	12.0°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	pa12_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate ee1b99647533new best when evaluated

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.161 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.917 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.487 Wh/km
frame mass	84.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 18 via crossover

hypothesisParent ddea5bee841a was invalid and edf6be6f17c4 scored a modest 8.88; this crossover bets that thinning the arms while slightly lengthening them, inherited partly from the invalid parent's proportions, could trim mass without tripping a structural constraint this time.

methodLengthened arms slightly from x0.90 to x0.97, thinned arm thickness from 4.4mm to 4.0mm, extended plate length marginally to x1.00, and nudged deck gap down slightly to 30.4mm.

resultNEW WINNER at 8.161 Wh/km, beating the prior best-so-far of 8.182 and both parents. The thinner 4.0mm arms combined with slightly longer arm length likely cut mass and drag together without triggering the plate-web or clearance constraints that killed several siblings this generation. Worth testing whether pushing arm thickness even below 4.0mm at this same arm length keeps paying off 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	3.436	146.0	29.0°
cold_headwind	6.390	271.4	54.8°
crosswind	4.991	212.0	44.7°
gusty_light	4.515	191.8	53.4°
hot_thin	3.684	156.5	33.1°
storm	6.487	275.4	63.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.97
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	32.9°
rear sweep	37.5°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	30.4 mm
battery wedge	14.5°
plate thickness	×0.76
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d54a3aa990a2

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.171 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.923 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.495 Wh/km
frame mass	85.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 24 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two similarly-competitive parents from the working cluster bet that combining their small differences in arm length, wedge, and material would edge past both toward the champion.

methodShortened arm length a bit (×0.97→×0.91), lowered battery wedge slightly (14.5°→13.4°), nudged the material-blend gene up marginally (0.00→0.05, still resolving to cf_plate), and widened the arm fractionally (×0.80→×0.82).

resultFitness of 8.171 beats both parents (8.247 and 8.2) but still trails the 8.126 best-so-far by about 0.045 Wh/km. This is the closest non-invalid result this generation outside the champion's own lineage, suggesting the shorter arm length is a small net positive; worth testing next is holding this arm-length/wedge combo while swapping in the champion's plate thickness and deck gap 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	3.450	146.5	28.9°
cold_headwind	6.387	271.3	54.6°
crosswind	4.991	212.0	44.6°
gusty_light	4.522	192.1	53.2°
hot_thin	3.697	157.1	33.1°
storm	6.495	275.7	63.0°

gene	value
arm length	×0.91
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.1 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	38.5°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	30.7 mm
battery wedge	13.4°
plate thickness	×0.76
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 88ecfdffbc69

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.192 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.937 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.511 Wh/km
frame mass	85.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 24 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the current best pivot-parent (8.161) with another cluster member (8.247) bet that averaging their plate width and battery wedge would land closer to the champion than either parent.

methodWidened the plate slightly (×0.98→×1.02), raised the battery wedge to the top of this cluster's range (14.5°→15.0°), and opened rear sweep marginally (37.5°→37.7°), with plate length unchanged.

resultFitness of 8.192 lands between the two parents but doesn't beat the fitter one (8.161), let alone the 8.126 best-so-far — the wider plate and steeper wedge each cost a little without a compensating gain. Suggests this cluster has already found a local optimum near battery wedge ~14.5° and plate width ~0.98-1.00; next worth testing is holding plate width fixed and varying deck gap instead, which this cluster hasn't explored much.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.452	146.7	29.0°
cold_headwind	6.405	272.1	54.8°
crosswind	5.017	213.1	44.7°
gusty_light	4.536	192.7	53.3°
hot_thin	3.699	157.2	33.1°
storm	6.511	276.5	63.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.97
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	32.9°
rear sweep	37.7°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	30.4 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.76
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 662870aeed7a

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.392 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.054 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.676 Wh/km
frame mass	93.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 24 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the strong ee1b99647533-like parent (8.163) with the weaker wide-plate lineage (10.184) bet that the fit parent's core geometry could absorb some of the other line's arm/plate thickness without losing much performance.

methodThickened the arm (4.0mm→4.5mm), thinned the plate (×0.70→×0.78), and nudged plate width/length toward the fitter parent (width ×1.00→×1.01, length ×0.99→×0.98).

resultFitness of 8.392 landed between the two parents but worse than the fitter one (8.163) and well off the 8.126 best-so-far. The extra arm thickness and altered plate outweighed whatever benefit came from borrowing the good parent's dimensions, showing the weaker parent's genes are still net-negative even diluted by crossover. Next worth testing: cross the fit parent with another member of its own cluster instead of the 10.18 lineage.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.524	149.7	29.1°
cold_headwind	6.573	279.2	55.0°
crosswind	5.138	218.3	44.9°
gusty_light	4.641	197.2	53.6°
hot_thin	3.773	160.3	33.3°
storm	6.676	283.4	63.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.93
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.5 mm
front sweep	32.1°
rear sweep	37.9°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	32.4 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.78
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 9d3053339b6d✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.770 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.245 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.051 Wh/km
frame mass	96.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 24 via designer

hypothesisWith the population converging tightly around the ee1b99647533/96a6924c438d cluster, this hand-designed seed bets on a fresh starting point to inject diversity the mutation and crossover operators haven't reached.

methodBuilt from scratch with arm length ×0.94, arm width ×1.00, a much fuller arm waist (×0.90 vs the winning cluster's ~×0.55), 4.0mm arm thickness, standard sweeps (32.9°/37.5°), a full-size plate, a wide 36.0mm deck gap, and a shallow 7.0° battery wedge, all in cf_plate.

resultFitness of 8.77 is valid and clear of every structural constraint, but about 0.6 Wh/km behind the working cluster and 0.64 behind the 8.126 best-so-far — the full arm waist and shallow battery wedge cost more in cold_headwind (7.05) and storm (7.0) than the design saved elsewhere. It's a useful, unrelated gene pool for future crossovers even without winning outright; next worth testing is crossing this design's arm-waist/deck-gap combination directly with the champion's battery wedge and 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	3.541	150.4	29.4°
cold_headwind	7.051	299.2	57.0°
crosswind	5.294	224.9	46.5°
gusty_light	4.779	203.0	57.0°
hot_thin	3.803	161.6	33.8°
storm	6.999	296.9	66.0°

gene	value
arm length	×0.94
arm width	×1.00
arm waist	×0.90
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	32.9°
rear sweep	37.5°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	36.0 mm
battery wedge	7.0°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 04c89a004a87

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.660 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.719 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.883 Wh/km
frame mass	122.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 24 via pivot

hypothesisParent c213bc81aab2 was a heavy, wide-armed design far off the pace (9.785), so the bet was that trimming arm length and plate thickness would recover some of that penalty.

methodShortened arm length (×1.00→×0.96), thinned the plate (×0.85→×0.82), thickened the arm slightly (4.5mm→4.6mm), and nudged front sweep up (32.0°→32.2°).

resultFitness improved to 9.66 from 9.785, better than the parent but still nearly 1.5 Wh/km off the 8.126 best-so-far. The near-vertical battery wedge (0.9°) and overly wide arms (×1.30) look like the real liability, driving cold_headwind (7.88) and storm (7.73) high; next worth testing is keeping this trimmed arm/plate but swinging the battery wedge toward the ~10-15° range the winning cluster uses.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.724	158.2	29.7°
cold_headwind	7.883	333.1	58.3°
crosswind	5.775	245.4	48.8°
gusty_light	5.181	220.1	59.9°
hot_thin	4.014	170.5	34.4°
storm	7.734	326.8	65.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.96
arm width	×1.30
arm waist	×1.10
arm thickness	4.6 mm
front sweep	32.2°
rear sweep	36.9°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.1 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×0.82
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 91186a7b595d

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	10.189 Wh/km
scenario mean	6.041 Wh/km
worst scenario	8.294 Wh/km
frame mass	149.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 24 via crossover

hypothesisPairing the stuck wide-plate lineage (10.184) with a decent performer (8.2) bet that the good parent's sweep/wedge balance could pull the offspring toward competitive fitness.

methodPulled front sweep down slightly (33.3°→31.6°), widened the plate a touch (×1.17→×1.20), barely raised the battery wedge (1.0°→1.5°), and increased rear sweep (47.9°→48.8°).

resultFitness of 10.189 is essentially unchanged from the weak parent (10.184) and far worse than the 8.2 parent, so the offspring inherited almost entirely the wide-plate lineage's structure rather than blending toward the fitter one. Teaches that this crossover point barely touched the genes that actually separate the two lineages, namely battery-wedge magnitude and arm waist/width; next worth testing is forcing a crossover that swaps those specific genes between the two lineages.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.949	167.7	29.9°
cold_headwind	8.294	349.0	58.5°
crosswind	6.145	261.1	49.9°
gusty_light	5.476	232.6	60.7°
hot_thin	4.232	179.8	34.6°
storm	8.153	343.9	63.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.01
arm width	×1.10
arm waist	×1.08
arm thickness	5.3 mm
front sweep	31.6°
rear sweep	48.8°
plate length	×1.21
plate width	×1.20
deck gap	36.2 mm
battery wedge	1.5°
plate thickness	×0.88
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 7920f2bd01ce

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	10.333 Wh/km
scenario mean	6.135 Wh/km
worst scenario	8.395 Wh/km
frame mass	158.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 24 via crossover

hypothesisWith no distinct second parent, this self-crossover of the stuck 10.184 lineage was really a mutation bet that opening the deck gap and thickening the plate/arm could break its plateau.

methodOpened the deck gap (37.0mm→41.0mm) and thickened the plate (×0.89→×0.97) and arm (5.4mm→5.6mm), with plate width unchanged.

resultFitness of 10.333 is worse than its own parent (10.184) and the weakest valid result this generation — every gene moved in the heavier direction with no aerodynamic offset, so both mass and drag rose. This lineage looks exhausted; next worth testing is retiring it and reseeding this design region from the champion cluster instead of continuing to mutate it in place.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	4.011	170.4	29.9°
cold_headwind	8.395	353.1	58.2°
crosswind	6.247	265.4	49.8°
gusty_light	5.570	236.6	60.3°
hot_thin	4.303	182.8	34.7°
storm	8.287	349.4	63.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×1.10
arm waist	×1.10
arm thickness	5.6 mm
front sweep	33.3°
rear sweep	47.9°
plate length	×1.20
plate width	×1.17
deck gap	41.0 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.97
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 197fe8db83c1

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	148.6 g
material	pla_plus
born	generation 24 via pivot

hypothesisParent 79e8d5ee4702 (10.643) is a long-plate, high-rear-sweep design that's been stuck, so the bet was that opening the deck gap would give the arm root more room while trimming plate/arm size slightly.

methodWidened the deck gap sharply (32.0mm→42.2mm), shortened arm length (×1.05→×0.96), tightened arm waist slightly (×0.90→×0.93), and trimmed plate length a little (×1.28→×1.26).

resultInvalid: the arm tongue bolts miss the main plate. Pushing the deck gap out faster than the plate-length trim compensated moved the arm root off the plate's bolt pattern entirely, so the sweep/waist bet was never actually tested. Next worth testing: scale plate length up in step with any deck-gap increase, or cap deck-gap moves to a few millimeters per step.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.96
arm width	×1.02
arm waist	×0.93
arm thickness	7.8 mm
front sweep	30.8°
rear sweep	54.9°
plate length	×1.26
plate width	×1.22
deck gap	42.2 mm
battery wedge	5.0°
plate thickness	×0.95
material	pla_plus

parents

candidate c4bd4348a001

click to open the 3D model

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	84.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 24 via pivot

hypothesisParent ee1b99647533 (8.161) had plateaued, so this pivot bets that a much steeper rear sweep plus a flatter battery wedge would cut drag in crosswind and storm.

methodSwept the rear arms back hard (37.5°→51.4°), shrank the plate (length ×1.00→×0.92, width ×0.98→×0.87), and lowered the battery wedge (14.5°→11.3°).

resultInvalid: the plate web thinned to 1.52mm against the 1.90mm structural floor. Shrinking the plate footprint on top of the existing thickness scale pushed the web under the limit before the rear-sweep aerodynamic bet could be evaluated. Next worth testing: keep plate thickness scale at or above ×0.80 (or raise it as footprint shrinks) before retrying the steep rear sweep.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.02
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.1°
rear sweep	51.4°
plate length	×0.92
plate width	×0.87
deck gap	29.8 mm
battery wedge	11.3°
plate thickness	×0.79
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 8fd38b0279f3

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	104.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 24 via pivot

hypothesisParent ee1b99647533 (8.161); bet was that a wider, more forward-swept frame with a bigger plate could handle gusty conditions better.

methodWidened the arm (×0.75→×1.09), enlarged the plate (length ×1.00→×1.09, width ×0.98→×1.12), thickened the plate (×0.76→×0.93), and swept the front arms forward more (32.9°→37.1°).

resultInvalid: rotor disks overlap, violating tip clearance. Widening arms and plate together while also increasing front sweep shrank inter-rotor spacing below the safety margin. Teaches that arm-width increases need a compensating sweep or length change to preserve clearance; next worth testing is widening arm width alone, without the extra front sweep, to find the real margin before overlap.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.96
arm width	×1.09
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	37.1°
rear sweep	34.3°
plate length	×1.09
plate width	×1.12
deck gap	30.5 mm
battery wedge	14.3°
plate thickness	×0.93
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 775a74b0278c

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	97.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 24 via pivot

hypothesisThis pivot comes directly off the reigning best-so-far (96a6924c438d, 8.126), betting that a beefier arm waist and thicker arm, paired with a longer plate and shallower battery wedge, could shave more off the heavy-wind scenarios.

methodDropped the battery wedge (14.5°→9.2°), fattened the arm waist (×0.55→×0.80), lengthened the plate (×1.00→×1.13), and thickened the arm (4.0mm→4.4mm).

resultInvalid: the arm root tongues collide on the main plate. Fattening the waist while also stretching the plate pushed the root tongues into each other's footprint, suggesting the champion's tight ×0.55 waist is load-bearing for tongue spacing, not just aerodynamics. Next worth testing: try the plate-length and battery-wedge changes alone while holding arm waist at the champion's ×0.55, to isolate whether those two genes help by themselves.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.94
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.80
arm thickness	4.4 mm
front sweep	31.1°
rear sweep	36.6°
plate length	×1.13
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	31.6 mm
battery wedge	9.2°
plate thickness	×0.74
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 86fee5cc8956

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.94 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	85.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 24 via pivot

hypothesisParent ee1b99647533 (8.161); bet was that reversing the sweep balance, more front sweep and less rear sweep, would improve crosswind handling.

methodSwung front sweep up (32.9°→39.3°) and rear sweep down (37.5°→34.0°), while narrowing the plate (×0.98→×0.94) and thinning it (×0.76→×0.82).

resultInvalid: the plate web collapsed to 0.94mm, roughly half the 1.90mm stock floor. This is the second plate-web failure this generation, reinforcing that plate width and thickness scale interact multiplicatively on web thickness, so narrowing width while also thinning compounds fast. Next worth testing: try the sweep swap alone at the parent's original plate width/thickness to isolate the aerodynamic effect.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.97
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	39.3°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×0.94
deck gap	29.0 mm
battery wedge	14.4°
plate thickness	×0.82
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 1b5817264395

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.13 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	89.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 24 via mutation

hypothesisParent 1812d2ce29b4 (8.247) is close to competitive, so the bet was that narrowing the plate while stretching its length could cut mass without losing stiffness.

methodNarrowed the plate (×0.98→×0.95), stretched it slightly longer (×1.00→×1.03), and raised the thickness scale (×0.76→×0.82).

resultInvalid: the plate web measured 1.13mm against the 1.90mm floor, despite the higher thickness scale. This shows plate-width narrowing is a more powerful and riskier lever on structural web thickness than the thickness scale itself. Next worth testing: repeat the length stretch with plate width held at the parent's ×0.98 to isolate whether elongation alone helps.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.97
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.1 mm
front sweep	32.9°
rear sweep	38.4°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×0.95
deck gap	30.4 mm
battery wedge	14.5°
plate thickness	×0.82
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate caaa939ed547

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.163 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.921 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.485 Wh/km
frame mass	83.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 23 via pivot

hypothesisParent 96a6924c438d is the reigning best-so-far (8.126); this pivot bets a small material tweak plus slightly wider arms and a steeper battery wedge can nudge the champion even lower.

methodShifted the material parameter within the cf_plate family, widened the arms slightly (×0.75→×0.81), eased front sweep a touch (32.9°→31.7°), and steepened the battery wedge marginally (14.5°→15.0°).

resultValid at 8.163 — close to the champion but not an improvement, so it does NOT become the new best-so-far. The small arm-width increase likely added just enough mass to offset any gain from the wedge/sweep tweaks, with the loss spread evenly across scenarios (storm 6.48). Worth testing: try the wedge/sweep tweak alone without the arm-width increase, to isolate which sub-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	3.450	146.6	29.0°
cold_headwind	6.372	270.7	54.8°
crosswind	5.000	212.4	44.7°
gusty_light	4.523	192.1	53.3°
hot_thin	3.695	157.0	33.1°
storm	6.485	275.3	63.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.94
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	31.7°
rear sweep	38.2°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	31.9 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 53ae8a5f98fa

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.200 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.940 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.519 Wh/km
frame mass	83.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 23 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing near-champion 3c71771ab1d2 (8.17) with unevaluated ee81c7796870 bets that more front sweep and a slightly wider arm can trade off against thinner plates for a net efficiency gain.

methodIncreased front sweep (32.9°→36.3°), widened the arms (×0.77→×0.81), and thinned the plates slightly (×0.72→×0.70).

resultValid at 8.2 — worse than the 8.17 parent and worse than the 8.126 best-so-far, no new winner. The extra front sweep and arm width likely added drag/mass the thinner plates couldn't offset, with losses spread evenly (storm 6.52, cold_headwind 6.42). Worth testing: try the plate-thinning alone without the front-sweep/arm-width increase, since thinner plates might be the genuinely beneficial 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	3.456	146.8	29.0°
cold_headwind	6.421	272.8	55.0°
crosswind	5.011	212.9	44.7°
gusty_light	4.536	192.7	53.6°
hot_thin	3.699	157.1	33.2°
storm	6.519	276.8	63.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.94
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	36.3°
rear sweep	37.1°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	31.5 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate e18b7cef3625

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.247 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.967 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.561 Wh/km
frame mass	85.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 23 via pivot

hypothesisParent ee1b99647533 (8.161) sits just above the champion; this pivot bets a narrower arm waist plus small plate/deck-gap tweaks can trim a bit more mass off an already-competitive frame.

methodNarrowed the arm waist further (×0.55→×0.63), nudged plate width up and plate length down slightly, and tightened the deck gap (30.4mm→29.8mm).

resultValid at 8.247 — worse than the 8.161 parent and worse than the 8.126 best-so-far, so no new winner. The waist narrowing likely added structural mass or drag without a compensating benefit, worsening every scenario fairly uniformly (storm 6.56, cold_headwind 6.47). Worth testing: revert the waist change and isolate just the deck-gap tightening, which may be the only beneficial 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	3.462	147.1	29.1°
cold_headwind	6.474	275.0	55.3°
crosswind	5.038	214.0	44.9°
gusty_light	4.559	193.7	53.9°
hot_thin	3.708	157.5	33.2°
storm	6.561	278.5	63.7°

gene	value
arm length	×0.96
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.63
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	32.9°
rear sweep	37.5°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	29.8 mm
battery wedge	14.8°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 1812d2ce29b4

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.247 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.967 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.560 Wh/km
frame mass	87.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 23 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing near-champion ee1b99647533 (8.161) with the actual champion 96a6924c438d (8.126) bets that blending their genes finds something better than either parent.

methodWidened arm width slightly (×0.75→×0.80), increased rear sweep marginally (37.5°→38.4°), and thickened the arms fractionally (4.0mm→4.1mm), with arm length held at the champion's value.

resultValid at 8.247 — worse than both parents and worse than the 8.126 best-so-far, no new winner. The small arm widening and thickening again look like the culprit, adding mass without offsetting drag gains, mirroring the same regression seen in e18b7cef3625. Worth testing: the champion's exact arm-width/thickness pair looks like a local optimum — future crossovers should preserve it exactly rather than nudging it.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.458	146.9	29.0°
cold_headwind	6.466	274.7	55.1°
crosswind	5.048	214.4	44.8°
gusty_light	4.562	193.8	53.7°
hot_thin	3.709	157.6	33.2°
storm	6.560	278.5	63.7°

gene	value
arm length	×0.97
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.1 mm
front sweep	32.9°
rear sweep	38.4°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	30.4 mm
battery wedge	14.5°
plate thickness	×0.76
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate c213bc81aab2✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.785 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.783 Wh/km
worst scenario	8.004 Wh/km
frame mass	125.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 23 via designer

hypothesisA second from-scratch designer proposal testing whether a wider, stockier arm cross-section (contrary to the population's thin-arm consensus) with a nearly flat battery wedge can compete, as an alternative structural hypothesis to the elite lineage.

methodBuilt with standard-length but much wider arms (×1.30 width), a wide arm waist (×1.10), moderate 4.5mm thickness, a near-flat 1.0° battery wedge, and stock-sized cf_plate plates.

resultValid at 9.785 Wh/km — better than the other designer proposal (10.643) but still well short of the 8.126 best-so-far, no new winner. The wide arm width looks costly across the board (storm 7.84, cold_headwind 8.00), reinforcing this generation's repeated finding that arm-width increases hurt efficiency. Worth testing: rerun this designer concept with the champion's narrow arm width and taper instead, to isolate whether the flat battery wedge idea has merit 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	3.742	159.0	29.8°
cold_headwind	8.004	337.8	58.5°
crosswind	5.846	248.4	49.3°
gusty_light	5.237	222.4	60.4°
hot_thin	4.034	171.4	34.6°
storm	7.837	331.0	65.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×1.30
arm waist	×1.10
arm thickness	4.5 mm
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 15e80ba12591

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	10.184 Wh/km
scenario mean	6.041 Wh/km
worst scenario	8.285 Wh/km
frame mass	149.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 23 via pivot

hypothesisParent c9158c37cd53 was a weak design (9.984); this pivot bets that flattening the battery wedge to near-zero plus beefier arms and plates can claw back efficiency.

methodFlattened the battery wedge (4.0°→1.0°), thickened the arms (4.5mm→5.4mm), swept the front arms back a bit more (30.0°→33.3°), and thickened the plates (×0.75→×0.89).

resultValid but worse — 10.184 Wh/km, actually higher than its already-weak parent (9.984) and far off the 8.126 best-so-far. The added arm/plate mass outweighed any wedge benefit across every scenario, especially storm (8.16) and cold_headwind (8.29). Worth testing: abandon this thick-arm/thick-plate lineage entirely — it's dominated by the leaner ~8.1-8.2 cluster.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.946	167.6	29.9°
cold_headwind	8.285	348.8	58.4°
crosswind	6.143	261.0	49.7°
gusty_light	5.480	232.8	60.5°
hot_thin	4.235	179.9	34.6°
storm	8.156	344.1	63.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×1.10
arm waist	×1.10
arm thickness	5.4 mm
front sweep	33.3°
rear sweep	47.9°
plate length	×1.20
plate width	×1.17
deck gap	37.0 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.89
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 79e8d5ee4702✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	10.643 Wh/km
scenario mean	6.316 Wh/km
worst scenario	8.654 Wh/km
frame mass	150.7 g
material	pla_plus
born	generation 23 via designer

hypothesisA from-scratch designer proposal exploring the opposite end of the design space — thick arms, big rear sweep, oversized plates, and a lightweight pla_plus material — betting a fundamentally different structural philosophy might open a new efficiency basin the mutation/crossover lineage hasn't reached.

methodBuilt with thick 7.8mm arms, a steep 54.0° rear sweep, oversized plates (×1.28 length, ×1.22 width), a shallow 5.0° battery wedge, and pla_plus material instead of the usual cf_plate.

resultValid but far off the pace at 10.643 Wh/km, well above the 8.126 best-so-far and worse than nearly every mutated descendant this generation. The oversized plates and thick arms add substantial mass that pla_plus's lighter density doesn't offset, with every scenario suffering proportionally (storm 8.53, cold_headwind 8.65). Worth testing: this confirms the population's convergence toward slim plates and thin arms is well-founded — future designer proposals should shrink plate size and arm thickness toward the champion's range even while exploring new materials.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	4.082	173.4	30.4°
cold_headwind	8.654	362.8	58.9°
crosswind	6.537	277.7	51.1°
gusty_light	5.741	243.8	61.4°
hot_thin	4.355	185.0	35.4°
storm	8.530	358.8	63.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.05
arm width	×1.00
arm waist	×0.90
arm thickness	7.8 mm
front sweep	31.0°
rear sweep	54.0°
plate length	×1.28
plate width	×1.22
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	5.0°
plate thickness	×0.95
material	pla_plus

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate b2db457835c5

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	88.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 23 via pivot

hypothesisParent 8c331ea6bfb6 sat in the ~8.17 cluster just above the champion; this pivot bets that widening the arm waist taper together with more rear sweep and a steeper battery wedge can shave further mass/drag off an already-competitive frame.

methodWidened the arm waist taper (was ×0.55, now ×0.77), swept the rear arms back further (37.5°→43.3°) and steepened the battery wedge (13.0°→15.0°), while easing front sweep slightly (33.0°→31.3°).

resultInvalid — the arm tongue bolts no longer land on the main plate. The combined waist widening and rear-sweep increase apparently pushed the arm-root footprint outside the plate's bolt pattern. Worth testing: keep the wedge/front-sweep tweak but cap the rear-sweep increase or grow plate length to keep the bolt holes covered.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.77
arm thickness	4.1 mm
front sweep	31.3°
rear sweep	43.3°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	29.6 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 61667aa405b2

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — cold_headwind: battery pack cannot deliver demanded power
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	176.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 23 via pivot

hypothesisParent a5fc89b84f71 was itself an unevaluated (invalid) design; this pivot tries to rescue it by opening the deck gap and trimming rear sweep and arm thickness, betting a roomier, slightly lighter frame clears whatever constraint killed the parent.

methodEnlarged the deck gap (37.5mm→45.0mm), pulled rear sweep in (41.8°→39.6°), grew plate width marginally (×1.02→×1.04), and thinned the arms slightly (6.7mm→6.5mm).

resultInvalid — in cold_headwind the battery pack can't deliver the demanded power. The larger frame (wider plates, bigger gap) likely raised drag or mass enough to push peak power draw past the pack's cold-weather limit. Worth testing: shrink plate width/deck gap back down, or pair this frame size with a higher-discharge battery profile.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.28
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×1.25
arm thickness	6.5 mm
front sweep	47.5°
rear sweep	39.6°
plate length	×1.17
plate width	×1.04
deck gap	45.0 mm
battery wedge	11.1°
plate thickness	×0.79
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate bff8162f5f02

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	127.6 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 23 via pivot

hypothesisAlso descending from the invalid a5fc89b84f71, this pivot instead attacks weight via a lighter pa12_cf material and smaller plates, betting the material swap alone fixes whatever grounded the parent.

methodNarrowed plate width (×1.02→×0.90), flattened the battery wedge (10.8°→7.4°), switched material toward pa12_cf, and thinned the plates (×0.80→×0.70).

resultInvalid — the plates end up too thin for pa12_cf's minimum gauge (1.4mm vs a 1.6mm floor). The material swap needed a thickness floor the genome didn't respect. Worth testing: keep pa12_cf but hold the plate-thickness multiplier above the material's minimum before shrinking further.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×1.26
arm thickness	6.7 mm
front sweep	47.2°
rear sweep	41.3°
plate length	×1.13
plate width	×0.90
deck gap	37.5 mm
battery wedge	7.4°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 1c95136afb21

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.12 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	86.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 23 via pivot

hypothesisParent 3c71771ab1d2 (8.17) is another near-champion frame; this pivot bets that flattening the battery wedge and shrinking plate width can save weight while a wider deck gap preserves clearance.

methodFlattened the battery wedge (15.0°→10.4°), narrowed the plates (×1.00→×0.90), opened the deck gap (31.6mm→35.8mm), and thickened the arms slightly (4.0mm→4.4mm).

resultInvalid — the main plate web collapses to 0.12mm against a 1.90mm structural minimum. Shrinking plate width that far while holding other plate dimensions fixed ate through the web material entirely. Worth testing: shrink plate width less aggressively, or raise plate-thickness multiplier in lockstep with any width reduction.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.93
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.4 mm
front sweep	34.1°
rear sweep	36.7°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.90
deck gap	35.8 mm
battery wedge	10.4°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate dd5e2dd65593

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	125.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 23 via crossover

hypothesisA self-crossover of the weak c9158c37cd53 (9.984) with itself, exploring nearby plate-size perturbations to see if slightly smaller plates rescue the lineage.

methodShrank plate length (×1.20→×1.14) and plate width (×1.18→×1.16), and trimmed arm length slightly (×1.05→×1.03).

resultInvalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate, the same failure mode seen in b2db457835c5 this generation. This confirms the steep front/rear-sweep combination in this lineage sits right at the edge of the bolt-pattern envelope regardless of plate-size tweaks. Worth testing: treat this bolt-miss signature as a recurring flag for this sweep combo and add a margin check before spending more evaluations on it.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.03
arm width	×1.10
arm waist	×1.10
arm thickness	4.5 mm
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	48.0°
plate length	×1.14
plate width	×1.16
deck gap	34.0 mm
battery wedge	4.0°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 5637dccd8806

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	90.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 23 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing ee1b99647533 (8.161) with an unevaluated aa3090106c01 bets on injecting fresh, untested genetic material to escape the current plateau near 8.13-8.25.

methodThickened the arms (4.0mm→4.4mm), eased front sweep (32.9°→31.2°), and nudged plate width/length down fractionally.

resultInvalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate. The combination of thicker arms with the inherited waist/sweep geometry left no clearance at the root. Worth testing: this is a second tongue-collision failure this generation — check whether arm-thickness increases specifically are what shrinks root clearance, and cap thickness when crossing with unvalidated parents.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.97
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.4 mm
front sweep	31.2°
rear sweep	37.3°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	30.4 mm
battery wedge	14.4°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate cb11dd7b0714

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	83.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 23 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing near-champion 3c71771ab1d2 (8.17) with the weak 5fd2ba8e9bf4 (9.793) bets the weaker parent might still contribute a useful rear-sweep or arm-length trait despite its poor overall fitness.

methodReduced rear sweep (37.1°→34.0°), narrowed arm width slightly (×0.77→×0.75), and shortened arm length a touch (×0.93→×0.95).

resultInvalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate, the same failure as 5637dccd8806. Pulling rear sweep down while keeping the narrow waist evidently removes the clearance margin that made the parent viable. Worth testing: rear-sweep reduction combined with a narrow waist looks like a reliable trigger for tongue collisions this generation — treat sweep and waist as coupled parameters going forward.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	32.3°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	31.6 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 3c71771ab1d2

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.170 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.924 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.493 Wh/km
frame mass	83.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 22 via crossover

hypothesisA self-cross probing the local neighborhood of the champion (8.126) to check whether small joint nudges to arm proportions and battery wedge could squeeze out more efficiency.

methodArm width widened slightly (0.75x to 0.77x), battery wedge raised to 15.0°, arm waist widened slightly, rear sweep trimmed 0.4°.

resultValid at 8.17 Wh/km - close to but not better than the 8.126 best-so-far, not a new winner. Cold_headwind (6.39) and storm (6.49) remain the dominant cost drivers, matching the champion's known weak spots, so these small tweaks didn't move the needle. Worth testing: revert the waist widening and instead isolate rear sweep alone to see if it can push the storm-scenario cost down further.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.446	146.4	29.0°
cold_headwind	6.389	271.4	54.9°
crosswind	5.000	212.4	44.7°
gusty_light	4.523	192.1	53.5°
hot_thin	3.692	156.8	33.1°
storm	6.493	275.7	63.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.93
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	32.9°
rear sweep	37.1°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	31.6 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 8c331ea6bfb6

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.174 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.923 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.501 Wh/km
frame mass	83.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 22 via crossover

hypothesisA near-identical clone of the champion used to isolate one variable, testing whether a shallower battery wedge alone improves weight distribution and efficiency.

methodBattery wedge angle lowered from 14.2° to 13.0°, with every other gene matching the champion's genome.

resultValid at 8.174 Wh/km, essentially matching but not beating the 8.126 champion - not a new winner. This confirms the champion sits in a strong, flat local optimum where battery wedge in the 13-15° range barely moves fitness. Worth testing: run the same single-gene isolation on rear sweep or arm waist to find which parameter actually controls 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	3.441	146.2	29.0°
cold_headwind	6.399	271.8	54.8°
crosswind	4.990	212.0	44.6°
gusty_light	4.522	192.1	53.3°
hot_thin	3.687	156.6	33.2°
storm	6.501	276.0	63.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	37.5°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	13.0°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 5fd2ba8e9bf4✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.793 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.781 Wh/km
worst scenario	8.024 Wh/km
frame mass	114.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 22 via designer

hypothesisA designer-guided attempt exploring whether much beefier arms (wider and thicker at the waist) on the champion's sweep/plate baseline would add enough structural robustness in adverse weather to justify the extra mass.

methodKept the champion's sweep angles and plate dimensions but widened arm width by 35% and arm waist by 25%.

resultValid but far worse at 9.793 Wh/km, well above the 8.126 best-so-far - not a new winner. The bulkier arms added mass and drag (cold_headwind 8.02, storm 7.84) with no offsetting benefit, confirming the champion's slender arm profile is closer to optimal. Worth testing: abandon the thick-arm bet for this frame and instead try designer-guided single-gene isolations directly on the champion, as candidate 8c331ea6bfb6 did.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.733	158.6	30.0°
cold_headwind	8.024	338.5	59.0°
crosswind	5.850	248.5	49.7°
gusty_light	5.235	222.4	61.0°
hot_thin	4.010	170.4	34.8°
storm	7.836	330.8	65.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×1.35
arm waist	×1.25
arm thickness	4.2 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	37.5°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	14.5°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate c9158c37cd53✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.984 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.894 Wh/km
worst scenario	8.179 Wh/km
frame mass	128.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 22 via designer

hypothesisA designer-guided attempt exploring whether a larger, more spread-out frame (longer arms and plate, steeper rear sweep, shallower battery wedge) would improve stability and efficiency in gusty and stormy conditions.

methodArms and plate both lengthened, plate widened, rear sweep raised to 48.0°, battery wedge dropped to 4.0°, arms thickened moderately.

resultValid but the worst candidate this generation at 9.984 Wh/km, well above the 8.126 best-so-far - not a new winner. The larger footprint and steep rear sweep raised drag and mass across every scenario (storm 7.97, cold_headwind 8.18) with no payoff, reinforcing that this design space rewards compact, lean frames near the champion's size. Worth testing: drop the large-frame approach and instead run small, targeted single-gene tests on the champion genome.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.802	161.5	29.9°
cold_headwind	8.179	344.3	59.2°
crosswind	5.994	254.7	50.5°
gusty_light	5.334	226.6	61.6°
hot_thin	4.082	173.4	34.8°
storm	7.974	336.4	64.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.05
arm width	×1.10
arm waist	×1.10
arm thickness	4.5 mm
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	48.0°
plate length	×1.20
plate width	×1.18
deck gap	34.0 mm
battery wedge	4.0°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 076d7f71be86

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	93.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 22 via pivot

hypothesisThe parent (8.161) was a solid but non-leading design; this bet lengthens the main plate and thickens the arm waist while trimming front sweep, hoping heftier arm roots plus a longer plate would trade a little mass for better load spreading.

methodPlate length grown 15%, arm waist thickened from 0.55x to 0.67x, front sweep pulled in slightly to 30.0°, rear sweep opened to 40.1°.

resultInvalid: arm root tongues collide on the main plate. Thickening the waist while narrowing front sweep squeezed the tongue footprint against the plate edge, the same collision mode seen elsewhere this generation. Worth testing: pair any waist increase with a compensating increase (not decrease) in front sweep to preserve tongue clearance.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.98
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.67
arm thickness	4.4 mm
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	40.1°
plate length	×1.15
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	14.8°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 18be8c932f2c

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	85.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 22 via pivot

hypothesisParent b9248eaa8d0a (8.297) was trailing the leaders, so this pivot tightens rear sweep and thins the arms to shed mass and drag.

methodRear sweep reduced from 36.6° to 34.0°, arm thickness trimmed from 4.3mm to 4.0mm, plate length nudged up 2%, arm waist bumped slightly to 0.58x.

resultInvalid: rotor disks overlap (tip clearance). Pulling the rear sweep in that much shortened the rear rotor spacing below the tip-clearance floor. Worth testing: shrink rear sweep in smaller steps, or lengthen the arms to compensate for tighter sweep before cutting arm thickness too.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.94
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	13.8°
plate thickness	×0.74
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 632aca7370d2

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	119.9 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 22 via pivot

hypothesisParent f4c0a73c7df1 was badly off the pace (9.932 vs 8.126 best), so this pivot tries shrinking its oversized plate and easing the battery wedge to cut the excess mass/drag dragging this lineage down.

methodPlate length trimmed slightly (1.30x to 1.25x), battery wedge eased from 4.0° to 3.0°, rear sweep opened a touch, front sweep trimmed a touch.

resultInvalid: arm tongue bolts miss the main plate. Even a modest plate shrink broke bolt alignment on a lineage whose geometry was already marginal at 9.9 fitness. Worth testing: this lineage likely needs a structural rework of the arm-root/tongue layout rather than incremental resizing, or should be dropped in favor of top parents.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.99
arm width	×0.95
arm waist	×0.83
arm thickness	6.5 mm
front sweep	30.6°
rear sweep	56.3°
plate length	×1.25
plate width	×1.25
deck gap	32.6 mm
battery wedge	3.0°
plate thickness	×0.95
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate a5fc89b84f71

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — cold_headwind: battery pack cannot deliver demanded power
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	177.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 22 via pivot

hypothesisParent 653b8d13dfbf was itself invalid, so this pivot bets on thinning the plate and arms to cut mass, hoping to bring power demand down enough to clear the battery's cold-weather limit.

methodPlate thickness cut ~29% (1.12x to 0.80x), arm width narrowed (0.86x to 0.77x), deck gap widened to 37.5mm, rear sweep trimmed slightly.

resultStill invalid: cold_headwind battery pack cannot deliver demanded power. Thinning the plate wasn't enough - the design still carries long (1.27x) thick (6.7mm) arms and large sweep angles that likely dominate the power draw. Worth testing: cut arm length and thickness together instead of plate thickness, since arm mass/drag is the probable bottleneck.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×1.24
arm thickness	6.7 mm
front sweep	46.8°
rear sweep	41.8°
plate length	×1.17
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	37.5 mm
battery wedge	10.8°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate dfbe80a0ea7b

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	148.7 g
material	petg
born	generation 22 via pivot

hypothesisSame failing parent as above; this sibling instead bets on switching to a different, more common material and steepening front sweep to find another route past the parent's power-delivery failure.

methodMaterial switched to petg, front sweep increased from 46.6° to 52.0°, arm length shortened slightly (1.27x to 1.20x), arm waist eased slightly.

resultInvalid, but with a different failure: arm tongue bolts miss the main plate. Pushing front sweep up while also changing arm length shifted the tongues out of bolt-hole alignment. Worth testing: when increasing front sweep, change arm length in smaller increments so tongue positions stay matched to the bolt pattern.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.20
arm width	×0.88
arm waist	×1.19
arm thickness	6.5 mm
front sweep	52.0°
rear sweep	43.3°
plate length	×1.17
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	34.8 mm
battery wedge	10.5°
plate thickness	×1.16
material	petg

parents

candidate ee81c7796870

click to open the 3D model

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	84.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 22 via pivot

hypothesisWorking from the reigning champion (8.126) which appeared to be plateauing, this pivot bets that a shorter plate and wider deck gap could shave more mass/drag while keeping the winning arm and sweep geometry intact.

methodPlate length cut 13%, deck gap widened from 31.6mm to 35.0mm, plate width and arm width nudged up slightly.

resultInvalid: plate web too thin (1.15mm vs 1.47mm stock minimum). Shrinking plate length without upping the thickness multiplier pushed the mid-web below the manufacturing floor - the champion's plate length is apparently already near a structural limit. Worth testing: only shrink plate length if plate thickness is increased in tandem to keep the web above minimum.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.94
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.2 mm
front sweep	32.6°
rear sweep	37.4°
plate length	×0.87
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	35.0 mm
battery wedge	14.5°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate dd669fcafafd

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	77.1 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 22 via pivot

hypothesisParent 499d0a95f92c was already invalid; this pivot bets on shrinking an oversized plate and raising the battery wedge for better weight balance, using a stronger material to offset the smaller plate.

methodPlate length cut 27% (1.20x to 0.88x), battery wedge raised from 10.8° to 15.0°, arm waist thickened, material shifted toward pa12_cf.

resultInvalid: plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4mm < 1.6mm minimum). pa12_cf demands a higher minimum plate thickness than cf_plate, so shrinking plate length while leaving the thickness multiplier low fell below that material's specific floor. Worth testing: any switch toward pa12_cf needs a paired increase in plate thickness multiplier to respect its higher minimum.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.09
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.69
arm thickness	4.7 mm
front sweep	35.5°
rear sweep	50.7°
plate length	×0.88
plate width	×1.07
deck gap	39.9 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 712856b63011

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	161.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 22 via immigrant

hypothesisA random immigrant injected for diversity, exploring a thick-arm, wide-plate, steep-sweep region of the design space far from current lineages to check for unexplored optima.

methodFresh random genome: thick 7.6mm arms, 1.25x plate width, steep 41.8°/55.3° front/rear sweep, independent of any parent.

resultInvalid: arm tongue bolts miss the main plate. High sweep angles combined with this plate width placed the tongues outside the bolt-hole positions, the same failure mode showing up repeatedly this generation. Worth testing: constrain immigrant sampling so sweep angles and plate dimensions are jointly consistent with tongue/bolt geometry rather than sampled independently.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×1.01
arm waist	×0.75
arm thickness	7.6 mm
front sweep	41.8°
rear sweep	55.3°
plate length	×1.13
plate width	×1.25
deck gap	30.9 mm
battery wedge	10.2°
plate thickness	×0.73
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 678adffecf68

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	95.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 22 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two decent-but-not-leading parents (8.185 and 8.161), betting that thicker plate and arms plus a tighter front sweep would buy structural margin without much efficiency cost.

methodPlate thickness raised 24% (0.72x to 0.89x), arm thickness raised to 4.4mm, front sweep trimmed to 31.2°, arm waist widened to 0.60x.

resultInvalid: arm root tongues collide on the main plate, the same failure mode as candidate 076d7f71be86 this generation. Widening the waist while cutting front sweep again squeezed the tongue clearance. Worth testing: pair any waist increase with an increase (not decrease) in front sweep to keep tongue spacing safe.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.4 mm
front sweep	31.2°
rear sweep	37.5°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	14.2°
plate thickness	×0.89
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate aa3090106c01

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	89.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 22 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing a mid-tier parent (8.297) with the champion (8.126), betting that shorter arms plus a longer plate could trim weight while keeping the champion's stability.

methodArm length shortened ~6% (0.95x to 0.89x), arm waist thickened to 0.67x, plate length grown 5%, plate thickness trimmed slightly.

resultInvalid: rotor disks overlap (tip clearance), the same failure mode seen in candidate 18be8c932f2c. Shortening the arms while thickening the waist reduced effective rotor spacing below the clearance floor. Worth testing: verify tip clearance whenever arm length shrinks, and don't combine that with a waist increase in the same step.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.89
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.67
arm thickness	4.3 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	36.6°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	13.9°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 41a3c9ccb306

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.185 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.930 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.509 Wh/km
frame mass	83.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 21 via mutation

hypothesisParent 168c3f15a835 is one of the generation's strongest designs (8.182), essentially at a local optimum; the bet was a tiny battery-wedge nudge to see if fine trim could squeeze out a bit more efficiency.

methodBattery wedge shifted down by just 0.3°, every other gene left untouched.

resultLanded at 8.185, statistically flat against the 8.182 parent and still short of the 8.126 best-so-far — not a new winner. This confirms the design is sitting in a shallow local optimum where wedge micro-tuning has run its course; storm (6.51) and cold-headwind (6.41) remain the dominant cost drivers. Next worth attacking those two scenarios directly through arm or sweep changes rather than further wedge tuning.

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	146.4	29.0°
cold_headwind	6.409	272.3	54.9°
crosswind	5.001	212.4	44.7°
gusty_light	4.528	192.4	53.4°
hot_thin	3.690	156.8	33.2°
storm	6.509	276.4	63.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	37.5°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	14.2°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b9248eaa8d0a

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.297 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.998 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.598 Wh/km
frame mass	88.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 21 via crossover

hypothesisThis paired the generation's two closest-to-best performers, 168c3f15a835 (8.182) and ee1b99647533 (8.161), betting their combined traits could beat both individually.

methodPlate widened 5%, arm thickness increased 0.3 mm, battery wedge eased 0.8°, rear sweep trimmed slightly — a blend of both parents' geometry.

resultValid at 8.297, landing worse than either parent rather than better, with storm cost rising to 6.60. The two parents seem to occupy nearby but not complementary optima, so blending diluted their individual strengths instead of combining them. Next worth trying single-parent mutations off 168c3f15a835 directly rather than crossing it with ee1b99647533.

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	148.2	29.1°
cold_headwind	6.501	276.1	55.1°
crosswind	5.077	215.7	44.8°
gusty_light	4.591	195.0	53.8°
hot_thin	3.735	158.7	33.2°
storm	6.598	280.1	63.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.3 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	36.6°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	13.7°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 8196e851cddd

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.893 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.342 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.100 Wh/km
frame mass	105.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 21 via crossover

hypothesisThis crossed a middling parent (683be6247a7c, 8.731) with an invalid one (bea63862fbee), betting that blending traits could yield a viable design better than either — a way to salvage something from the invalid parent's lineage.

methodFront sweep opened about 3°, arm thickness increased 0.3 mm, arm waist widened slightly, battery wedge nudged up 0.3°, mostly inheriting the valid parent's structure.

resultValid but regressed to 8.893, worse than the 8.731 parent alone, with both storm (7.1) and cold-headwind (7.07) costs climbing. This suggests whatever the invalid parent contributed dragged performance down rather than adding value. Next worth avoiding further crosses with this invalid lineage and instead recombining validated high performers like 168c3f15a835 or ee1b99647533.

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	29.5°
cold_headwind	7.070	300.1	56.5°
crosswind	5.450	231.5	46.3°
gusty_light	4.890	207.7	55.8°
hot_thin	3.897	165.6	33.9°
storm	7.100	301.2	65.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.08
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.8 mm
front sweep	39.9°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	39.6 mm
battery wedge	12.3°
plate thickness	×0.77
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 4c7dffe16932✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.633 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.711 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.843 Wh/km
frame mass	121.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 21 via designer

hypothesisA hand-designed candidate exploring a chunkier arm profile — wider arms and waist with a notably shallow battery wedge — testing whether beefier arms and less aggressive pitch trim could be competitive on their own.

methodBuilt from scratch: stock arm length, arm width and waist both widened 15%, moderate 4.5 mm arm thickness, conservative 32°/37° sweep angles, shallow 8° battery wedge, plate thinned 15%.

resultFitness 9.633 — clearly worse than the 8.126 best-so-far and every valid result this generation, with storm (7.71) and cold-headwind (7.84) especially high. The shallow 8° wedge and wide arms appear to add drag and mass without payoff. This generation's evidence keeps pointing to wedge angles around 12-15° and narrower arms (~0.75-0.8x) as the productive zone, so next worth retesting this same shape with wedge raised to that range before writing off wider arms.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.733	158.6	29.8°
cold_headwind	7.843	331.5	58.2°
crosswind	5.785	245.8	48.9°
gusty_light	5.181	220.1	59.8°
hot_thin	4.015	170.6	34.5°
storm	7.710	325.9	65.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×1.15
arm waist	×1.15
arm thickness	4.5 mm
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	34.0 mm
battery wedge	8.0°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate f4c0a73c7df1✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.932 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.894 Wh/km
worst scenario	8.077 Wh/km
frame mass	122.1 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 21 via designer

hypothesisA second hand-designed probe, this one testing the far end of the design space — extreme rear sweep and an enlarged plate paired with PA12-CF and a near-flat battery wedge.

methodBuilt from scratch: stock arm length, arm width and waist slightly narrowed, thick 6.5 mm arms, rear sweep pushed to 55°, plate enlarged 30% in length and 25% in width, battery wedge nearly flat at 4°, PA12-CF material.

resultFitness 9.932 — the worst result of the generation, trailing the 8.126 best-so-far across every scenario (storm 7.92, cold-headwind 8.08). The oversized plate and extreme rear sweep add substantial mass and drag with no offsetting benefit, and the near-flat wedge compounds it. This confirms rear sweep beyond ~50° and oversized plates are a dead end without matching mass cuts elsewhere; next worth abandoning this branch and instead perturbing the actual champion lineage (96a6924c438d) with small, targeted steps.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.844	163.3	30.1°
cold_headwind	8.077	340.5	58.9°
crosswind	6.073	258.0	50.5°
gusty_light	5.352	227.3	60.9°
hot_thin	4.099	174.2	34.9°
storm	7.917	334.2	65.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×0.95
arm waist	×0.85
arm thickness	6.5 mm
front sweep	31.5°
rear sweep	55.0°
plate length	×1.30
plate width	×1.25
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	4.0°
plate thickness	×0.95
material	pa12_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 499d0a95f92c

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	106.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 21 via pivot

hypothesisParent 683be6247a7c was a middling performer (8.731), well off the pace; the bet was that a longer plate combined with a much sharper rear sweep and a slightly narrower arm would shift mass rearward and cut drag enough to close the gap.

methodPlate stretched about 14% longer, rear sweep opened from 42° to 50.5°, arm width trimmed slightly, and battery wedge nudged shallower by about a degree.

resultInvalid before it could fly: the arm tongue bolts no longer land on the main plate. Pushing rear sweep past ~50° while also growing the plate appears to drag the arm root mounting points outside the bolt pattern. Worth testing rear sweep increases in smaller steps, holding plate length fixed, to find where the bolt alignment actually breaks.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.09
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.7 mm
front sweep	35.7°
rear sweep	50.5°
plate length	×1.20
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	40.1 mm
battery wedge	10.8°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d175103c6f76

click to open the 3D model

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	85.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 21 via pivot

hypothesisParent 96a6924c438d is the reigning best-so-far (8.126); the bet was that shortening the arms and plate while widening the plate and tightening the deck gap could shave more mass off an already-winning design.

methodPlate widened 25%, arms shortened 25%, plate shortened 13%, and the deck gap tightened by about 6 mm relative to the champion.

resultInvalid: the plate's structural web collapsed to 0.85 mm against a 1.90 mm stock minimum. Shrinking plate length while simultaneously growing its width evidently eats directly into the web margin. This is a useful boundary to know for the champion lineage — next worth trying the width increase alone, without the length cut, to see if that alone stays valid and still saves weight.

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	4.6 mm
front sweep	32.8°
rear sweep	37.5°
plate length	×0.87
plate width	×1.25
deck gap	25.5 mm
battery wedge	14.6°
plate thickness	×0.73
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate e6d70e6397dc

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	88.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 21 via pivot

hypothesisParent ee1b99647533 sits right at the front of the pack (8.161); the bet was that tightening both battery wedge and front sweep while thickening the arms slightly could sharpen the frontal profile without sacrificing stiffness.

methodBattery wedge dropped about 4°, front sweep tightened by roughly 3°, arm thickness bumped up 0.4 mm, plate thinned about 8%.

resultInvalid: the arm root tongues now collide on the main plate. Narrowing front sweep to 30° while leaving rear sweep unchanged near 37.6° apparently crowds the tongue mounts together. Suggests front and rear sweep need to move in tandem — next worth trying a matched reduction in both angles to preserve tongue clearance.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.96
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.4 mm
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	37.6°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	31.3 mm
battery wedge	10.5°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 29a3397eb415

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	149.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 21 via pivot

hypothesisParent 13a830315571 was a weak design (9.313); the bet was that a substantially thicker plate plus wider arms might fix whatever structural or drag weakness was dragging its fitness down.

methodPlate thickness increased 45%, arm width widened 15%, plate width trimmed slightly, front sweep tightened about 1.4°.

resultInvalid: arm tongue bolts miss the main plate again, echoing the same failure seen elsewhere this generation. The large jump in plate thickness likely shifted bolt hole positions relative to the arm tongues faster than the rest of the geometry adapted. Next worth testing smaller, incremental thickness steps to find the point where bolt alignment first breaks.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.99
arm width	×0.98
arm waist	×0.75
arm thickness	5.5 mm
front sweep	30.6°
rear sweep	48.9°
plate length	×1.16
plate width	×1.14
deck gap	31.2 mm
battery wedge	3.1°
plate thickness	×1.31
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 9168cb2487da

click to open the 3D model

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	93.0 g
material	petg
born	generation 21 via pivot

hypothesisParent 7c50a90b1e0d never produced a valid frame at all; the bet was that trimming its overbuilt arms and switching to PETG might turn an invalid design into a flyable one.

methodArm thickness cut from 7.0 mm to 4.9 mm, arm waist widened slightly, front sweep opened up, battery wedge steepened, and material switched to PETG.

resultStill invalid, though for a new reason: the plate web comes out at 1.52 mm against the 1.90 mm stock minimum. PETG's effective plate-thickness math didn't get a corresponding boost when the arms were thinned, so the plate stayed underbuilt. Lesson: a material swap to PETG needs its own plate thickness compensation, not just arm-side tuning. Next worth retrying this PETG branch with the plate thickness multiplier raised directly.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.92
arm width	×0.94
arm waist	×1.01
arm thickness	4.9 mm
front sweep	36.8°
rear sweep	38.6°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×0.97
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.88
material	petg

parents

candidate c72495c5669e

click to open the 3D model

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 21 via pivot

hypothesisParent 168c3f15a835 is a strong performer (8.182); the bet was that switching to PA12-CF for its strength-to-weight properties, plus a slightly longer plate, could unlock further gains on an already-good frame.

methodMaterial swapped from CF plate to PA12-CF, plate length extended 10%, battery wedge eased about 1°, rear sweep opened slightly.

resultInvalid: PA12-CF carries a 1.6 mm minimum plate thickness and this frame only reaches 1.4 mm. The material swap alone broke the constraint since the plate thickness multiplier wasn't adjusted to match. Next worth repeating this exact swap but with plate thickness pushed up enough to clear the 1.6 mm floor.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.98
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.1 mm
front sweep	33.2°
rear sweep	38.8°
plate length	×1.10
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	29.8 mm
battery wedge	13.5°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate bfe0af5e1cf7

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	101.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 21 via pivot

hypothesisSame weak parent as 499d0a95f92c (683be6247a7c, 8.731); the bet here was similar — grow rear sweep and plate length for better mass distribution — while also trimming plate thickness to claw back some weight.

methodRear sweep opened by 6°, plate length extended 8%, plate thickness trimmed about 7%, with a small shift in the material blend.

resultInvalid, same failure as its sibling: arm tongue bolts miss the main plate. Two independent children of this parent both broke on rear sweep + plate length growth, which strongly confirms this parent's arm-tongue geometry can't absorb both changes at once. Next worth isolating the two — try rear sweep alone, without touching plate length, to see if that survives.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.08
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.6 mm
front sweep	36.8°
rear sweep	48.1°
plate length	×1.13
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	38.9 mm
battery wedge	12.5°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 653b8d13dfbf

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	190.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 21 via immigrant

hypothesisA fresh random immigrant injected purely for diversity, betting that a chunkier, longer-armed frame with wide sweep angles might open up a region of the design space the bred population hasn't explored.

methodFreshly sampled from scratch: arms 27% longer and much thicker (6.5 mm), waist widened 23%, both front and rear sweep pushed into the mid-40s degrees, plate thickened 12%.

resultInvalid: arm tongue bolts miss the main plate, the same failure mode seen repeatedly this generation, here arising from an entirely unrelated random genome. That broadens the lesson beyond bred lineages — front sweep in the mid-40s combined with longer arms seems to reliably break bolt alignment regardless of ancestry. Next worth tightening the immigrant sampler's sweep-angle bounds relative to arm length to cut down wasted invalid immigrants.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.86
arm waist	×1.23
arm thickness	6.5 mm
front sweep	46.6°
rear sweep	43.4°
plate length	×1.17
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	35.0 mm
battery wedge	10.6°
plate thickness	×1.12
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 982b5ed734ba

click to open the 3D model

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	118.1 g
material	pla_plus
born	generation 21 via crossover

hypothesisAnother attempt to salvage value from the invalid parent 7c50a90b1e0d, this time crossed with the mediocre-but-valid 683be6247a7c, betting a shift toward a lighter PLA+ material blend could produce something both valid and cheaper to print.

methodFront sweep opened 4.5°, material blend shifted toward PLA+, arm waist trimmed slightly, deck gap trimmed slightly, while inheriting the thick 7.1 mm arms from the invalid parent.

resultInvalid: the plate web comes out at only 0.99 mm against the 1.90 mm stock minimum. PLA+ is a weaker material that needs a much larger plate thickness margin than cf_plate to hit the same web dimension, and that multiplier wasn't raised to compensate. Next worth revisiting a PLA+ experiment only with the plate thickness multiplier pushed well above x1.0 from the start.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.99
arm width	×1.01
arm waist	×0.83
arm thickness	7.1 mm
front sweep	37.5°
rear sweep	40.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.95
deck gap	31.6 mm
battery wedge	13.1°
plate thickness	×0.88
material	pla_plus

parents

candidate 168c3f15a835new best when evaluated✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.182 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.929 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.507 Wh/km
frame mass	83.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 15 via designer

hypothesisThe designer targets the exact slender-arm, low-waist recipe that's been trending well, betting that a near-stock arm length with a thinner plate and a steep battery wedge shaves the last bit of drag off the plateau.

methodSet arm length just under stock with the thin 0.75x width, 0.55x waist, and 4.0 mm wall, kept plate length/width near stock but thinned it further, and pushed the battery wedge up to 14.5°.

result8.182 — a NEW BEST-SO-FAR, edging out the prior 8.191 record, with storm and cold-headwind both improving to the lowest values seen this generation. The steep wedge paired with the thinner plate appears to trim drag in the worst-case scenarios without costing structural margin. Worth testing next: push the battery wedge further (15-16°) on this same frame to see if gains continue.

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	29.0°
cold_headwind	6.408	272.2	54.9°
crosswind	4.999	212.4	44.7°
gusty_light	4.526	192.3	53.4°
hot_thin	3.688	156.7	33.2°
storm	6.507	276.3	63.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	37.5°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	14.5°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate e7e03181ab0e

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.570 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.152 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.836 Wh/km
frame mass	91.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 20 via pivot

hypothesisParent 99aabf80e737 (8.671) was a middling performer; the bet was that more front sweep for prop clearance, combined with slimmer arms and plate, would cut both drag and weight.

methodIncreased front sweep about 2°, thinned the arm 0.4 mm, thinned the plate roughly 5%, and slightly reduced battery wedge angle.

resultValid at 8.57 Wh/km, a real improvement over the 8.671 parent but well short of the 8.161 best-so-far — not a new winner. Storm (6.84) and cold_headwind (6.82) remain the costliest scenarios, meaning the frame still isn't shedding enough drag in high-wind conditions. Worth testing: push front and rear sweep further together to see if storm/crosswind numbers keep falling.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.536	150.2	29.4°
cold_headwind	6.816	289.4	56.4°
crosswind	5.226	222.0	45.6°
gusty_light	4.715	200.3	55.5°
hot_thin	3.781	160.6	33.7°
storm	6.836	290.1	64.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.07
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.1 mm
front sweep	39.1°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	37.3 mm
battery wedge	10.4°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 683be6247a7c

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.731 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.248 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.968 Wh/km
frame mass	99.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 20 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing 99aabf80e737 (8.671) with an unproven partner (4f03961f4da8, no recorded fitness) bet that a further-widened deck gap would improve prop-wash separation and cut drag.

methodWidened deck gap 3 mm further, increased battery wedge angle 1°, left front sweep and arm length essentially unchanged.

resultValid at 8.731 Wh/km, marginally worse than the 99aabf80e737 parent and far from the 8.161 best-so-far — no new winner. It tracks almost identically to the similarly-widened sibling 00b932b716c0, suggesting deck gap beyond ~37 mm gives diminishing or negative returns. Worth testing: hold deck gap near 37 mm and vary sweep or battery wedge instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.588	152.4	29.4°
cold_headwind	6.939	294.6	56.4°
crosswind	5.348	227.2	46.1°
gusty_light	4.804	204.1	55.6°
hot_thin	3.839	163.1	33.8°
storm	6.968	295.7	64.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.08
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.5 mm
front sweep	36.8°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	12.0°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 00b932b716c0

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.737 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.233 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.008 Wh/km
frame mass	97.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 20 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing cc38957804f5 (long arms, wide plate) with fcb011a2c551 (tighter, leaner design) aimed to blend high-sweep drag reduction with lower mass.

methodWidened deck gap slightly, softened front sweep 1°, lowered battery wedge angle, and lengthened the arm a touch beyond either parent.

resultValid at 8.737 Wh/km — worse than both parents (8.657 and 8.249) and far off the 8.161 best-so-far, a step backward rather than a winner. Storm (6.98) and cold_headwind (7.01) dominate the cost, showing the blend didn't inherit either parent's wind-handling strength. Worth testing: avoid crossing two already-weak parents; prioritize pairings where at least one side is near the 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	3.537	150.2	29.4°
cold_headwind	7.008	297.4	57.0°
crosswind	5.303	225.3	46.5°
gusty_light	4.777	202.9	56.8°
hot_thin	3.798	161.3	33.8°
storm	6.978	296.1	66.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.17
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	39.0°
rear sweep	45.1°
plate length	×1.10
plate width	×1.11
deck gap	39.3 mm
battery wedge	1.5°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 13a830315571✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.313 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.588 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.449 Wh/km
frame mass	131.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 20 via designer

hypothesisA second from-scratch designer probe testing an aggressive high-rear-sweep, oversized-plate concept with slimmer arms, exploring whether a bigger structural plate could support steeper sweep angles better than the evolved lineage had tried.

methodBuilt with a slimmer arm cross-section (5.5 mm thick), rear sweep pushed to 48°, plate length and width both enlarged 15-18%, battery wedge dropped near-flat to 3°, using cf_plate material.

resultFitness 9.313 — much better than the other designer probe (10.562) thanks to cf_plate, but still well short of the 8.161 best-so-far and behind the top evolved candidates. Storm (7.44) and cold_headwind (7.45) again dominate the cost, suggesting the oversized plate added drag/mass that outweighed any benefit from the steeper rear sweep. Worth testing: shrink the plate back toward stock size while keeping the slim arm profile, to isolate whether the arm changes alone can approach the champion's numbers.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.797	161.3	29.4°
cold_headwind	7.449	315.8	56.4°
crosswind	5.684	241.5	46.9°
gusty_light	5.096	216.5	57.2°
hot_thin	4.063	172.6	33.9°
storm	7.440	315.3	65.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.75
arm thickness	5.5 mm
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	48.0°
plate length	×1.15
plate width	×1.18
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	3.0°
plate thickness	×0.90
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 5e3f898635c8✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	10.562 Wh/km
scenario mean	6.268 Wh/km
worst scenario	8.588 Wh/km
frame mass	149.0 g
material	petg
born	generation 20 via designer

hypothesisA from-scratch designer probe testing a heavy-duty design direction — much thicker, wider arms in petg — valuing structural robustness and printability over pure aero efficiency, exploring outside the CF-plate lineage.

methodBuilt with arm width up 35%, arm waist up 20%, arm thickness 7.5 mm, plate thickness trimmed 10%, and petg material instead of carbon-fiber plate.

resultFitness 10.562, far worse than the 8.161 best-so-far and worse than nearly every evolved candidate this generation, with storm hit hardest at 8.48. The heavier petg material combined with oversized arm cross-sections likely added substantial mass without any aero benefit. Worth testing: if exploring petg again, pair it with much slimmer arm dimensions to offset its weight penalty, or drop it in favor of cf_plate given the lineage's consistent preference for that material.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	4.060	172.5	30.3°
cold_headwind	8.588	360.4	58.5°
crosswind	6.454	274.2	50.5°
gusty_light	5.696	241.9	60.9°
hot_thin	4.332	184.0	35.2°
storm	8.478	356.8	63.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×1.35
arm waist	×1.20
arm thickness	7.5 mm
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	14.0°
plate thickness	×0.90
material	petg

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate d0550d8dc260

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.96 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	114.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 20 via pivot

hypothesisParent fcb011a2c551 (8.249) was a solid but unremarkable performer; this candidate bets that much stiffer arms could cut vibration losses, with a trimmed plate footprint to pay for the added arm mass.

methodNearly doubled arm thickness to 6.3 mm, narrowed the plate 6% in width, shifted the material blend, and eased front sweep back to 30°.

resultInvalid — the plate web collapsed to 0.96 mm against a 1.90 mm stock requirement. Narrowing plate width while thickening the arm squeezes the tongue/web region below the print-safe limit. Worth testing: push arm thickness up while holding plate width at stock, changing only one dimension at a time near this margin.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.96
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.61
arm thickness	6.3 mm
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	34.6°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.94
deck gap	30.3 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 4b7bc2bcd75f

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	82.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 20 via pivot

hypothesisParent 168c3f15a835 (8.182) was near the plateau; this candidate bets that relocating battery mass to a shallower wedge plus a slimmer plate could shave off more drag and weight.

methodDropped battery wedge angle by 7°, narrowed plate width 9%, widened deck gap 3 mm, and thinned the plate slightly.

resultInvalid — plate web fell to just 0.34 mm, a much worse violation than similar attempts this generation. Combining narrower width with thinner plate is an extremely fast path to structural failure since the web thickness scales with their product. Worth testing: adjust plate width or thickness independently, never both toward thinner at once.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.1°
rear sweep	37.6°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.91
deck gap	33.0 mm
battery wedge	7.5°
plate thickness	×0.74
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 6c7c74548cc3

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	94.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 20 via pivot

hypothesisParent ee1b99647533 sits essentially at the prior best-so-far (8.161); this candidate bets that a wider deck gap for prop clearance combined with thicker arms could break the plateau.

methodWidened deck gap by about 7 mm, reduced front sweep 2°, thickened the arm 0.5 mm, and lengthened the arm slightly to full scale.

resultInvalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate. Widening deck gap while reducing sweep pushes the arm roots too close together, showing deck gap and sweep are coupled and can't both tighten at once. Worth testing: widen deck gap only alongside increased, not decreased, front sweep.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.5 mm
front sweep	30.7°
rear sweep	37.5°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	37.1 mm
battery wedge	14.2°
plate thickness	×0.76
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate bea63862fbee

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.30 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	77.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 20 via pivot

hypothesisSame near-champion parent ee1b99647533; the bet here was that shorter arms and a smaller plate footprint could cut mass/drag without sacrificing the parent's proven stability.

methodShortened arm length 14%, narrowed plate width 7%, thinned the plate 8%, and slightly widened the arm cross-section.

resultInvalid — plate web dropped to just 0.30 mm, a severe violation. Shrinking plate width and thickness together, even from a proven-safe parent, is a recurring failure mode this generation. Worth testing: shrink plate footprint alone while holding thickness fixed, to map the safe margin separately.

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
front sweep	32.8°
rear sweep	37.9°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.91
deck gap	30.2 mm
battery wedge	14.5°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d5936bac9dde

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	95.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 20 via pivot

hypothesisParent cc38957804f5 underperformed (8.657); the bet was that trimming its oversized plate width while nudging length and thickness up would rebalance the geometry and cut drag.

methodNarrowed plate width about 7%, thickened the plate and arm slightly, and lengthened the plate a touch further.

resultInvalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate. Shrinking plate width without adjusting arm-root position moves the bolt pattern off the plate edge. Worth testing: narrow plate width only in lockstep with a corresponding arm length/waist adjustment so bolt holes stay seated.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.1 mm
front sweep	40.0°
rear sweep	45.1°
plate length	×1.11
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	33.7 mm
battery wedge	2.1°
plate thickness	×0.77
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 3056a97974b4

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	88.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 20 via pivot

hypothesisParent fcb011a2c551 (8.249); the bet was that longer, slimmer-waisted arms would give more prop clearance and less turbulence interaction, cutting drag losses.

methodLengthened the arm about 20%, slimmed the arm waist, reduced front sweep 3°, and lowered battery wedge angle.

resultInvalid — arm root tongues collide on the plate, the same failure mode seen in 6c7c74548cc3. Lengthening arms while reducing sweep simultaneously crowds the tongues at the root. Worth testing: pair longer arms with increased, not decreased, sweep to keep tongues clear.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	30.3°
rear sweep	36.9°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	12.6°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 7c50a90b1e0d

click to open the 3D model

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	118.5 g
material	pla_plus
born	generation 20 via crossover

hypothesisRecombine two selected parents: their strengths may be complementary. Parents: 930f0f (9.54) and 491c76 Wh/km.

methodLargest gene changes: plate width ×0.95 (was plate width ×1.00), material 0.66 (was material 0.58), rear sweep 40.1° (was rear sweep 38.0°), battery wedge 13.0° (was battery wedge 12.0°).

resultINVALID -- plate web too thin (plate_main 0.99 mm, stock 1.90 mm). The design never flew; the constraint itself is the learning.

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.99
arm width	×1.01
arm waist	×0.85
arm thickness	7.0 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	40.1°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.95
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	13.0°
plate thickness	×0.88
material	pla_plus

parents

candidate 2e90ef740be5

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	93.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 20 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing cc38957804f5's long-arm profile with the near-champion ee1b99647533 aimed to merge the strengths of both lineages.

methodShrank deck gap about 4 mm, shortened arm length slightly, widened the arm cross-section, and increased rear sweep about 2°.

resultInvalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate, another instance of the geometry-coupling failures seen elsewhere this generation. Shrinking deck gap while changing rear sweep shifts the bolt pattern off the plate edge. Worth testing: verify bolt alignment stays within plate bounds whenever deck gap and rear sweep move together.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.06
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	39.8°
rear sweep	47.4°
plate length	×1.09
plate width	×1.08
deck gap	30.3 mm
battery wedge	1.7°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate fcb011a2c551

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.249 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.967 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.564 Wh/km
frame mass	84.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 19 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the 8.182 near-leader with a mid-pack 8.316 individual bets that blending their arm-waist and battery-wedge genes could combine the best traits of both into something better than either.

methodTook the 8.182 parent's frame and widened arm waist from ×0.55 to ×0.61 and raised battery wedge from 14.5° to 15°, both pulled toward the other parent's values.

resultValid at 8.249 — better than the 8.316 parent but worse than the 8.182 parent, landing between them rather than beating the stronger parent. Not a new winner against the 8.1606 best-so-far. The wider arm waist likely added drag/mass without a compensating gain; a future cross from this pair should keep arm waist near ×0.55 and take only the battery-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	3.460	147.0	29.1°
cold_headwind	6.479	275.2	55.2°
crosswind	5.036	213.9	44.8°
gusty_light	4.558	193.6	53.8°
hot_thin	3.706	157.4	33.2°
storm	6.564	278.7	63.7°

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.61
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	37.5°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 1f64eb9282c0

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.551 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.132 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.838 Wh/km
frame mass	93.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 19 via pivot

hypothesisParent (8.427) was solid but mid-pack; this pivot bets that tightening the deck gap and nudging arm length/waist up, while shifting the material blend, could close the gap to the leading lineage near 8.16.

methodShrank deck gap from 35.3mm to 30.2mm, shifted the material blend value from 0.01 to 0.13, lengthened arms slightly (×1.04→×1.09), and widened arm waist (×0.55→×0.61).

resultValid at 8.551, slightly worse than its 8.427 parent and well off the 8.1606 best-so-far — not a new winner. Cold_headwind and storm stayed the weak scenarios (6.84, 6.83), suggesting the tighter deck gap didn't buy enough mass savings to offset drag; worth retesting with a smaller waist widening to isolate which change hurt.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.497	148.6	29.2°
cold_headwind	6.838	290.3	56.8°
crosswind	5.190	220.5	45.6°
gusty_light	4.685	199.0	56.1°
hot_thin	3.755	159.5	33.6°
storm	6.826	289.7	65.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.09
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.61
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	41.6°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.22
deck gap	30.2 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 70db3ff49709

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.620 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.183 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.875 Wh/km
frame mass	92.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 19 via mutation

hypothesisParent (8.621) was mid-pack with room for aerodynamic tuning; this mutation bets that trimming both sweep angles a couple degrees could shave a little drag.

methodReduced rear sweep from 37.5° to 35.1° and front sweep from 33° to 31.7°, with a negligible material-blend nudge.

resultValid at 8.62 — essentially unchanged from the 8.621 parent and nowhere near the 8.1606 best-so-far. The small sweep trims barely moved any scenario, suggesting this lineage's arm length (×1.15) and deck gap (40mm) are the bigger untried levers; worth mutating those instead of fine-tuning sweep.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.545	150.6	29.4°
cold_headwind	6.845	290.7	56.5°
crosswind	5.292	224.8	46.2°
gusty_light	4.745	201.6	55.6°
hot_thin	3.792	161.1	33.8°
storm	6.875	291.8	65.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	31.7°
rear sweep	35.1°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate cc38957804f5✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.657 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.190 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.934 Wh/km
frame mass	95.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 19 via designer

hypothesisA designer-authored fresh design, independent of the mutation/crossover lineages, probing a different structural regime — long slim arms, steep sweep angles (40°/45°), and a near-zero battery wedge — to see if it could beat the incumbent cf_plate lineage clustered around 8.16-8.2.

methodBuilt from scratch with arm length ×1.15, arm width ×0.75, arm waist ×0.55, 4.0mm arm thickness, front/rear sweep 40°/45°, plate ×1.10/×1.10, 34mm deck gap, 2° battery wedge, cf_plate material.

resultValid at 8.657, comfortably behind the 8.1606 best-so-far and behind most surviving pivots this generation. The steep sweep angles and oversized plate likely added drag and mass the leading lineage has already trimmed away; the near-zero battery wedge is a genuinely unexplored region worth grafting onto a lighter, more evolved frame instead of a fresh design.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.524	149.7	29.3°
cold_headwind	6.934	294.4	57.0°
crosswind	5.251	223.1	46.0°
gusty_light	4.737	201.2	56.5°
hot_thin	3.781	160.6	33.7°
storm	6.911	293.2	65.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	40.0°
rear sweep	45.0°
plate length	×1.10
plate width	×1.10
deck gap	34.0 mm
battery wedge	2.0°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 99aabf80e737✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.671 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.215 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.912 Wh/km
frame mass	99.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 19 via designer

hypothesisDesigner probe exploring a longer-arm, higher-sweep variant of the successful lean cf_plate recipe, betting that scaling several dimensions up together (arm length, sweep, plate size, deck gap) could unlock a new efficiency regime beyond the incumbent lineage's local optimum.

methodFresh build with arm length ×1.08, arm width ×0.75, arm waist ×0.55, 4.5mm arm thickness, front/rear sweep 37°/42°, plate ×1.05/×1.05, deck gap 37mm, battery wedge 11°, cf_plate material.

resultValid at 8.671, better than the other two designer attempts but still well off the 8.1606 best-so-far and behind most pivot survivors. Scaling everything up together likely added mass faster than it improved aerodynamics; a more useful next designer probe would isolate just one change (e.g. deck gap or sweep alone) against the proven lean baseline rather than moving many 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	3.580	152.1	29.3°
cold_headwind	6.867	291.6	56.3°
crosswind	5.324	226.2	45.8°
gusty_light	4.776	202.9	55.3°
hot_thin	3.830	162.7	33.7°
storm	6.912	293.3	64.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.08
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.5 mm
front sweep	37.0°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	37.0 mm
battery wedge	11.0°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 930f0f43c3e4✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.544 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.705 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.676 Wh/km
frame mass	117.6 g
material	pla_plus
born	generation 19 via designer

hypothesisDesigner probe testing a heavier-duty structural philosophy — thick 7mm arms, wide arm waist, and pla_plus material — betting a sturdier, if heavier, frame might handle adverse-weather scenarios better than the lean cf_plate lineage.

methodFresh build with arm length ×0.97, arm width ×1.00, arm waist ×0.85, 7.0mm arm thickness, pla_plus material, deck gap 32mm, battery wedge 12°, plate thickness ×0.85.

resultValid but the worst result this generation at 9.544, far behind the 8.1606 best-so-far. Cold_headwind (7.68) and storm (7.63) were especially bad, confirming pla_plus's weaker strength-to-weight forces overbuilt, heavy geometry that drags down efficiency across the board. This structural family looks unproductive; future designer probes should stick to cf_plate or pa12_cf and keep arm thickness under 5mm.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.802	161.5	29.9°
cold_headwind	7.676	325.1	57.2°
crosswind	5.867	249.3	48.3°
gusty_light	5.205	221.1	58.1°
hot_thin	4.055	172.3	34.6°
storm	7.626	322.7	66.0°

gene	value
arm length	×0.97
arm width	×1.00
arm waist	×0.85
arm thickness	7.0 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	38.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	12.0°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	pla_plus

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 4ac9211801ab

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	65.2 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 19 via pivot

hypothesisParent was an unevaluated pivot; this candidate doubles down on a lighter pa12_cf shell with shortened arms and a wider plate, betting that switching away from cf_plate could shave mass without giving up stiffness.

methodShortened arm length by about a quarter, switched shell material to pa12_cf, trimmed the battery wedge slightly, and widened the plate about 16% while thinning it further.

resultInvalid — plate thickness fell to about 1.4mm, below the 1.6mm minimum gauge pa12_cf requires, so the sim never ran. This is the second material-switch-plus-thin-plate failure this generation; next pivot from this lineage should raise the plate thickness multiplier back toward baseline before retrying pa12_cf.

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	4.4 mm
front sweep	30.5°
rear sweep	34.3°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.16
deck gap	30.3 mm
battery wedge	13.8°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 4f03961f4da8

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	77.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 19 via pivot

hypothesisParent unevaluated; this pivot chases a much flatter battery wedge and shorter arms, betting that lowering battery angle plus a leaner arm could cut drag-inducing frontal area.

methodCut battery wedge from 15° to 10°, shortened arms by 25%, and nudged plate width/length up by a percent or two.

resultInvalid — rotor disks now overlap at the tip-clearance check. Shortening arms that far without shrinking plate/hub geometry to match pushed props into each other; this became a recurring failure mode this generation. Next pivot should scale plate footprint down whenever arm length is cut past ×0.85.

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
front sweep	31.8°
rear sweep	37.7°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	26.9 mm
battery wedge	10.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 11c318447f3e

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	81.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 19 via pivot

hypothesisParent (8.191) was near the front of the pack; this pivot bets that shrinking the deck gap and narrowing the plate could cut mass further while extra front sweep compensates for clearance.

methodReduced deck gap from 30mm to 20mm, narrowed the plate to ×0.89, increased front sweep from 33° to 38.4°, and shifted the material blend from 0.00 to 0.15.

resultInvalid — a 20mm deck gap is too tight for the FC/ESC stack to physically fit. The aggressive gap cut was the direct cause; a more conservative trim (25-27mm) paired with the same sweep/material changes is worth retrying to test whether the aerodynamic bet still pays off.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.01
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	38.4°
rear sweep	37.6°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×0.89
deck gap	20.0 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.76
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate bb2ad43752d1

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	87.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 19 via pivot

hypothesisSame 8.191 parent; this sibling pivot takes the opposite tack on plate geometry, betting a wider plate and reduced rear sweep improves stability/efficiency in gusty scenarios.

methodWidened the plate to ×1.13, reduced rear sweep from 37.5° to 34.0°, opened the deck gap slightly (30→31mm), and nudged battery wedge up to 15°.

resultInvalid — rotor disks overlap. Combining a wider plate with reduced rear sweep pulled the rear rotor clearance envelope inward past the props. Together with two other overlap failures this generation, the rotor-clearance margin around plate-width + sweep changes needs a tighter guardrail; next attempt should keep rear sweep ≥36° whenever plate width exceeds ×1.10.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.93
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.2°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×1.13
deck gap	31.0 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.74
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate dc02657c411a

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	78.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 19 via pivot

hypothesisParent (8.427) again; this pivot bets that shrinking arm length while keeping a wide plate but tightening the deck gap could trim mass more aggressively than sibling candidate 1f64eb9282c0.

methodCut arm length by 25% (×1.04→×0.75), narrowed plate width from ×1.25 to ×1.14, tightened deck gap from 35.3mm to 30.6mm, and shrank plate length slightly.

resultInvalid — rotor disks overlap again, the third such failure this generation. A 25% arm-length cut consistently collides with plate widths above ×1.10; this lineage likely needs either a much narrower plate or a more modest arm-length cut (closer to ×0.85-0.90) to stay within clearance.

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
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	38.4°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.14
deck gap	30.6 mm
battery wedge	1.1°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 853fcc162151

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	73.4 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 19 via pivot

hypothesisParent (8.182) sits near the leading edge; this pivot bets that switching to pet_cf material with a narrower plate and shorter arms could find a lighter, still-strong alternative to the incumbent cf_plate design.

methodSwitched material toward pet_cf, narrowed the plate to ×0.85, shortened arms to ×0.80, and tightened deck gap from 30mm to 24mm.

resultInvalid — plates came out at 1.5mm, just under pet_cf's 1.6mm minimum gauge. Same failure pattern as the earlier pa12_cf pivot: any material switch that shrinks plate thickness needs the thickness multiplier bumped up first. Worth retrying this exact pivot with plate thickness held at ×0.74 or higher.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.80
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	5.1 mm
front sweep	32.8°
rear sweep	37.7°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×0.85
deck gap	24.0 mm
battery wedge	14.8°
plate thickness	×0.74
material	pet_cf

parents

candidate 491c76ac7a81

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	107.7 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 19 via crossover

hypothesisEffectively a self-cross/mutation of a weak 9.35 individual, probing whether reshuffling its plate thickness, length, and material could rescue it into contention — a diversity probe rather than an exploitation move.

methodThickened plates from ×0.90 to ×1.09, lengthened plate from ×1.00 to ×1.09, shifted material blend from 0.40 to 0.23 (further into pa12_cf), and shortened arms slightly to ×0.86.

resultInvalid — rotor disks overlap. Starting from an already weak, thick-armed parent (6.6mm) and shortening arms while growing the plate pushed rotors together. This lineage looks like a dead end; not worth further pivots unless arm thickness comes down substantially first.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.86
arm width	×0.95
arm waist	×0.85
arm thickness	6.6 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	37.5°
plate length	×1.09
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	10.0°
plate thickness	×1.09
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 1e4ff75d88d0

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	84.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 19 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing 8.182 with a mid-pack 8.621 bets that borrowing the second parent's more aggressive sweep angles could improve airflow in windy scenarios without sacrificing the first parent's overall efficiency.

methodIncreased front sweep from 33° to 36.1° and rear sweep from 37.5° to 41.1°, widened arm waist to ×0.64, and tightened deck gap from 30mm to 28mm.

resultInvalid — rotor ended up too close to the deck/battery stack. Stacking both parents' sweep increases plus a tighter deck gap left no clearance margin. Next attempt should take only one sweep increase (front or rear, not both) and leave deck gap at 30mm.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.94
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.64
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	41.1°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	28.0 mm
battery wedge	13.5°
plate thickness	×0.74
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 3ae2747c7d03new best when evaluated✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.191 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.934 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.514 Wh/km
frame mass	83.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 12 via designer

hypothesisWith this generation's pivots and crossovers mostly stalling near 9-9.2 Wh/km or failing geometry checks by thickening plates and widening waists, the designer bet on a clean-sheet frame with a much thinner plate and narrower, shorter-waisted arms than the population trend, wagering raw mass reduction would beat incremental tweaking.

methodBuilt from scratch with arm length at 0.95x, a narrow arm width (0.75x) and waist (0.55x), a thin 4.0mm arm, and a plate thickness of only 0.75x -- far lighter than the roughly 1.0-1.6x plates the evolutionary candidates were converging on.

result8.191 Wh/km -- a NEW WINNER, beating the prior 8.417 best-so-far by nearly 3% and every evolutionary candidate this generation by a wide margin, with gains spread evenly across all six scenarios (calm_warm 3.45, storm 6.51). The population had been stuck exploring plate-thickening and waist-widening variants while the real gain was in aggressively thinning the plate; worth testing next: sweep plate thickness even lower from this new baseline to find the actual 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	3.448	146.5	29.0°
cold_headwind	6.413	272.4	54.8°
crosswind	5.005	212.6	44.6°
gusty_light	4.532	192.5	53.4°
hot_thin	3.693	156.9	33.2°
storm	6.514	276.6	63.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	37.5°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	14.5°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate f3c0d94b4337

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.316 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.007 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.617 Wh/km
frame mass	87.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 18 via pivot

hypothesisBuilding on champion 168c3f15a835 at 8.182, this pivot bets that widening the plate and opening rear sweep, borrowed from the weaker parent, could improve stability in the storm/crosswind scenarios that dominate the fitness penalty.

methodWidened plate width from x1.00 to x1.18, increased rear sweep from 37.5° to 40.4°, eased battery wedge from 14.5° to 13.3°, and lengthened plate marginally to x1.01.

resultValid at 8.316 Wh/km — worse than the 8.182 best-so-far and a regression versus its champion parent, not a new winner. The wider plate likely added drag/mass that outweighed any stability gain, with storm (6.62) and cold_headwind (6.54) still elevated. Worth testing a smaller width bump (~x1.05-1.08) to see if any gain survives before the drag cost dominates.

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	29.1°
cold_headwind	6.538	277.7	55.5°
crosswind	5.084	216.0	45.0°
gusty_light	4.596	195.3	54.2°
hot_thin	3.728	158.4	33.3°
storm	6.617	280.9	64.0°

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.1°
rear sweep	40.4°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×1.18
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	13.3°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 13f4416f23de

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.427 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.067 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.718 Wh/km
frame mass	93.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 18 via pivot

hypothesisParent e20198e260a2 (8.407) had a wide front sweep and thick arms; despite pairing with the much weaker 8306b049970e (10.254), this pivot bets that straightening the sweep and lengthening/thinning the arms could cut drag and mass together.

methodReduced front sweep from 38.1° to 30.0°, lengthened arms from x0.92 to x1.04, thinned arm thickness from 4.6mm to 4.0mm, and nearly flattened battery wedge from 1.6° to 1.2°.

resultValid at 8.427 — essentially flat versus parent e20198e260a2 (8.407) and well off the 8.182 best-so-far, not a new winner. The straighter sweep and thinner arms didn't pay off, suggesting the longer arm length added enough mass/flex penalty to cancel the aerodynamic gain. Worth retesting the sweep/thickness change with arm length held near the parent's x0.92 to isolate the sweep effect.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.484	148.0	29.1°
cold_headwind	6.684	283.8	56.1°
crosswind	5.138	218.3	45.3°
gusty_light	4.637	197.0	55.1°
hot_thin	3.743	159.0	33.4°
storm	6.718	285.2	64.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.04
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	41.5°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.25
deck gap	35.3 mm
battery wedge	1.2°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 364861df596c✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.621 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.182 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.878 Wh/km
frame mass	92.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 18 via designer

hypothesisA designer candidate testing whether stretching arm length further while keeping the champion's slim arm profile could improve efficiency via more prop-to-frame clearance, at the cost of a much wider deck gap.

methodFresh designer genome reusing champion-like slim arms (x0.75 width, x0.55 waist, 4.0mm thickness) but longer x1.15 arm length, baseline sweep angles, and a notably wide 40.0mm deck gap versus the champion lineage's ~30mm.

resultValid at 8.621 Wh/km, better than the weaker designer/immigrant entries this generation but well short of the 8.182 best-so-far. The oversized 40mm deck gap likely added unnecessary mass/drag the slim arm profile couldn't offset. Worth testing the same slim, long-arm combination with deck gap pulled back to ~28-30mm to isolate whether the arm stretch 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	3.543	150.5	29.4°
cold_headwind	6.857	291.2	56.6°
crosswind	5.281	224.3	46.1°
gusty_light	4.743	201.5	55.7°
hot_thin	3.790	161.0	33.8°
storm	6.878	291.9	65.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	37.5°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	40.0 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 44d60067e154✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.071 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.397 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.348 Wh/km
frame mass	102.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 18 via designer

hypothesisA designer candidate exploring a bulkier, wider-armed, more steeply swept configuration with a nearly flat battery wedge, testing whether extra surface area and sweep could counter adverse-weather drag better than the slim champion lineage.

methodFresh designer genome with wider/thicker arms (x1.10 width, x0.65 waist) at moderate x1.05 length, steeper sweep angles (38.0°/44.0°), enlarged plates (x1.08 length, x1.10 width), a 33.0mm deck gap, and a nearly flat 4.0° battery wedge.

resultValid at 9.071 Wh/km, among the weaker entries this generation and far off the 8.182 best-so-far. The combination of wider arms, larger plates, and steep sweep angles likely stacked mass and drag penalties across every scenario (cold_headwind 7.35, storm 7.24 both high). Worth testing the steep sweep angles alone on the slim champion arm/plate profile to see if sweep is separable 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	3.591	152.5	29.6°
cold_headwind	7.348	311.5	57.6°
crosswind	5.443	231.2	47.5°
gusty_light	4.906	208.4	58.6°
hot_thin	3.855	163.8	34.1°
storm	7.237	306.7	66.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.05
arm width	×1.10
arm waist	×0.65
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	38.0°
rear sweep	44.0°
plate length	×1.08
plate width	×1.10
deck gap	33.0 mm
battery wedge	4.0°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 677ff9320314✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.350 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.599 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.503 Wh/km
frame mass	115.8 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 18 via designer

hypothesisA designer-proposed candidate testing whether pet_cf material with thicker arms and heavier plates could trade mass for durability or efficiency gains relative to the cf_plate-dominated population.

methodFresh designer genome using pet_cf material, moderate arm dimensions (x0.95 length/width, x0.85 waist, 6.5mm thickness), baseline sweep angles (33.0°/37.5°), a 32.0mm deck gap, and a shallow 10.0° battery wedge.

resultValid at 9.35 Wh/km, well behind the 8.182 best-so-far and clearly weaker than the cf_plate frontrunners. The thicker 6.5mm arms and pet_cf material likely add mass across every scenario (cold_headwind 7.5, storm 7.47 both notably high) without an efficiency payoff. Worth testing pet_cf with much thinner arms (closer to 4.0mm) to see if the material is viable once arm mass is trimmed to match the cf_plate leaders.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.760	159.7	29.7°
cold_headwind	7.503	318.0	56.7°
crosswind	5.734	243.6	47.4°
gusty_light	5.110	217.1	57.5°
hot_thin	4.014	170.5	34.3°
storm	7.472	316.6	65.9°

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.95
arm waist	×0.85
arm thickness	6.5 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	37.5°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	10.0°
plate thickness	×0.90
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate ede8aeb040c8

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	81.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 18 via pivot

hypothesisParent 168c3f15a835 is the reigning champion at 8.182 Wh/km; this pivot bets that shrinking the deck gap and pulling the arms in slightly, borrowing proportions from the weaker parent, could shave mass and drag further without compromising rotor clearance.

methodCut deck gap from 30.0mm to 26.9mm, shortened arm length from x0.95 to x0.92, grew plate length marginally to x1.02, and steepened battery wedge from 14.5° to 15.0°.

resultInvalid: rotor too close to deck/battery. The combination of a tighter deck gap and shorter arms crossed the rotor-clearance boundary for this frame. Worth testing deck gap around 28-29mm with arm length held closer to the champion's x0.95 to find the edge without violating clearance.

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
front sweep	32.4°
rear sweep	37.5°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	26.9 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate e4db38aa1ba6

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	89.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 18 via pivot

hypothesisParent e20198e260a2 (8.407) carries a wide 35.3mm deck gap that likely adds unneeded mass; this pivot tests whether aggressively tightening the gap while borrowing more rear sweep from the weaker parent can trim weight and keep favorable aerodynamics.

methodCut deck gap from 35.3mm to 21.8mm, increased rear sweep from 41.6° to 51.0°, narrowed plate width from x1.25 to x1.13, and pulled front sweep in from 38.1° to 33.7°.

resultInvalid: deck gap too small for the FC/ESC stack. Confirms deck gap has a hard floor somewhere in the mid-20s mm for hardware clearance. Worth testing deck gap around 24-25mm, the narrowest value still likely compatible with the FC/ESC stack.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.82
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.6 mm
front sweep	33.7°
rear sweep	51.0°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.13
deck gap	21.8 mm
battery wedge	0.8°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 5339f9abc0a7

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	74.8 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 18 via pivot

hypothesisWith parent 0986a5262b2a itself invalid and 8e9a69935b5d weak at 9.202, this pivot gambles on switching to pet_cf material to cut mass, paired with a slightly narrower arm width to compensate.

methodSwitched material to pet_cf, trimmed front sweep from 33.0° to 30.5°, narrowed arm width from x0.77 to x0.75, and opened rear sweep slightly from 34.0° to 34.9°.

resultInvalid: plates too thin for pet_cf (1.5mm found vs 1.6mm required). pet_cf apparently demands thicker plates than cf_plate to remain structurally valid, so the plate-thickness gene needs scaling up whenever material switches to pet_cf. Worth retrying the same sweep/width changes with plate thickness pushed above pet_cf's floor.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.96
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.2 mm
front sweep	30.5°
rear sweep	34.9°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.14
deck gap	30.3 mm
battery wedge	14.7°
plate thickness	×0.73
material	pet_cf

parents

candidate c550fae34bf3

click to open the 3D model

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	84.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 18 via pivot

hypothesisParent 3ae2747c7d03 sits close to the champion at 8.191; this pivot bets that a much more aggressive front sweep plus a slimmer plate could shave drag and mass even further.

methodSwept the front arms out sharply from 33.0° to 43.1°, narrowed plate width from x1.00 to x0.85, thickened arm waist from x0.55 to x0.70, and opened rear sweep slightly to 38.3°.

resultInvalid: plate web too thin (1.45mm vs 1.90mm stock). Narrowing plate width that aggressively erodes web thickness margin even without touching the plate-thickness gene directly. Worth retesting the sweep change with plate width kept closer to parent (x0.95+) to preserve web thickness.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.96
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.70
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	43.1°
rear sweep	38.3°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×0.85
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	14.5°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 1934ad17d9fa

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	157.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 18 via pivot

hypothesisBoth parents underperform (10.724 and 8.79), so this pivot experiments aggressively, betting that a much tighter deck gap combined with thicker plates could recover the mass/drag balance that made both parents weak.

methodSlashed deck gap from 32.0mm to 20.0mm, thickened plates from x0.75 to x1.05, tightened arm waist from x1.00 to x0.88, and trimmed arm length slightly to x1.21.

resultInvalid: deck gap too small for the FC/ESC stack, the same failure mode as e4db38aa1ba6 this generation. Reinforces that deck gap below roughly the mid-20s mm is a hard no regardless of compensating changes elsewhere. The population should stop probing below ~24mm and focus deck-gap search in the 24-29mm band instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.21
arm width	×1.10
arm waist	×0.88
arm thickness	6.0 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	37.9°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	20.0 mm
battery wedge	9.9°
plate thickness	×1.05
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a522b8bb4195

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.71 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	107.1 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 18 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing weaker 60382b2b4074 (9.285) with e20198e260a2 (8.407) aims to combine e20198e260a2's better baseline with 60382b2b4074's arm-waist and pa12_cf material traits, hoping a narrower plate cuts drag while a thicker plate gene compensates structurally.

methodNarrowed plate width from x1.00 to x0.93, opened rear sweep from 37.5° to 40.5°, loosened arm waist from x0.85 to x0.92, and nudged plate thickness up from x0.95 to x1.03, on a pa12_cf material base.

resultInvalid: plate web far too thin (0.71mm vs 1.90mm stock), a severe structural failure. pa12_cf combined with reduced plate width appears to collapse web thickness much more sharply than cf_plate does. Crossovers mixing material genes need an explicit thickness floor check per material; worth testing pa12_cf frames with plate width held at parent levels (x1.00+) first.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.94
arm waist	×0.92
arm thickness	6.5 mm
front sweep	33.1°
rear sweep	40.5°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.93
deck gap	30.7 mm
battery wedge	8.7°
plate thickness	×1.03
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 2946cc7755a8

click to open the 3D model

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	191.8 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 18 via immigrant

hypothesisA random immigrant injected for diversity, exploring a heavy, wide-armed, high-sweep design far outside the current population's neighborhood to test whether a different structural regime could open a new fitness basin.

methodFresh random genome: thick, wide, long arms (8.2mm thickness, x1.35 width, x1.31 length), aggressive sweep angles (45.0°/59.8°), a wide 41.5mm deck gap, and pet_cf material with thick x1.52 plates.

resultInvalid: plate web too thin (0.73mm vs 1.90mm) despite the x1.52 plate-thickness multiplier, showing pet_cf's web-thickness constraint depends on more than the thickness gene alone (likely interacting with plate width/length). Immigrants keep landing in invalid pet_cf territory; worth seeding immigrants with material-aware gene bounds so pet_cf candidates start above its stricter thickness floor.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.31
arm width	×1.35
arm waist	×0.73
arm thickness	8.2 mm
front sweep	45.0°
rear sweep	59.8°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.93
deck gap	41.5 mm
battery wedge	14.7°
plate thickness	×1.52
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate d7d6f3236b5b

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	63.4 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 18 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents were invalid designs, so this crossover explores largely blind territory, betting that combining their sweep and arm-length traits under pa12_cf material might land in a valid, competitive region.

methodStraightened front sweep slightly from 31.5° to 30.0°, opened rear sweep from 40.9° to 42.5°, shortened arms marginally from x0.95 to x0.93, and tightened deck gap slightly to 29.2mm, on pa12_cf material.

resultInvalid: plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4mm vs 1.6mm minimum), the third pa12_cf/pet_cf thickness failure this generation. With two invalid parents, this crossover had little chance of validity from the start; the recurring pattern shows pa12_cf and pet_cf both need a higher baseline plate thickness than cf_plate, so the search should bias thickness upward whenever those materials are selected.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.93
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.65
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	42.5°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	29.2 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate e20198e260a2

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.407 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.061 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.692 Wh/km
frame mass	96.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 17 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing 39f194f2e8c6 (8.41) and 9354d3181c74 (8.248) bets that averaging their plate-width and sweep genes retains 9354d3181c74's edge while adding a touch more plate width for stability.

methodNudged plate width up slightly, opened front sweep marginally, and shaved plate thickness a hair, with arm thickness carried over unchanged from the parents.

resultValid at 8.407 — close to but not better than parent 9354d3181c74's 8.248, and short of the 8.182 best-so-far, so not a new winner. The small, cautious gene tweaks produced a small, cautious result, nearly a dead heat with the weaker parent, suggesting this region of gene space is near a local plateau. Next: try a bolder plate-width or sweep step from 9354d3181c74 directly rather than blending with the weaker parent.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.518	149.4	29.0°
cold_headwind	6.615	281.0	55.5°
crosswind	5.124	217.7	44.9°
gusty_light	4.642	197.2	54.3°
hot_thin	3.774	160.3	33.2°
storm	6.692	284.1	64.0°

gene	value
arm length	×0.92
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.6 mm
front sweep	38.1°
rear sweep	41.6°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.25
deck gap	35.3 mm
battery wedge	1.6°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate f9ea3427ba54✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.792 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.276 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.032 Wh/km
frame mass	106.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 17 via designer

hypothesisThe LLM designer proposes a fresh hand-designed genome exploring a large-plate, high-sweep configuration, independent of the evolving lineage, to see if generous plates and aggressive sweep angles can compete with the mutation-derived population.

methodA from-scratch design: baseline arm dimensions but a notably large plate footprint (length ×1.28, width ×1.24), wide sweep angles (42°/50°), and a near-flat battery wedge.

resultValid at 8.792 — solidly behind the 8.182 best-so-far and mid-pack overall. The oversized plates likely added drag-relevant frontal area and mass without a compensating benefit, particularly visible in storm (7.02) and cold_headwind (7.03). Next: shrink the plate footprint toward stock size while keeping the wide sweep angles, to isolate whether sweep or plate size is the real drag driver.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.591	152.6	29.3°
cold_headwind	7.032	298.4	56.8°
crosswind	5.345	227.1	46.4°
gusty_light	4.814	204.5	56.6°
hot_thin	3.853	163.7	33.6°
storm	7.018	297.7	65.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	42.0°
rear sweep	50.0°
plate length	×1.28
plate width	×1.24
deck gap	38.0 mm
battery wedge	1.0°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate edf6be6f17c4

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.880 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.314 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.132 Wh/km
frame mass	96.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 17 via pivot

hypothesisParent 96878b1ca46d trailed the leader at 8.782; this pivot bets that lengthening the plate for better weight distribution while thinning it slightly could recover some efficiency.

methodStretched plate length 15%, trimmed plate thickness marginally, and nudged front sweep in by less than a degree.

resultValid but not competitive at 8.88 Wh/km — worse than its better parent (8.782) and well off the 8.182 best-so-far, so not a new winner. The plate-length stretch likely added drag/weight without an aerodynamic payoff, most visible in storm (7.08) and cold_headwind (7.13), which dominate the score. Next: try the plate thinning alone without the length stretch to see if that piece 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	3.568	151.6	29.5°
cold_headwind	7.132	302.6	57.2°
crosswind	5.440	231.1	47.8°
gusty_light	4.845	205.8	57.6°
hot_thin	3.820	162.3	34.0°
storm	7.078	300.2	66.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.29
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	32.2°
rear sweep	37.7°
plate length	×1.17
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	33.2 mm
battery wedge	14.1°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 60382b2b4074✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.285 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.547 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.475 Wh/km
frame mass	105.3 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 17 via designer

hypothesisThe designer tests whether a stockier, thicker-armed pa12_cf frame with near-stock plate geometry can trade some weight for durability/print-safety margin, taking the material-swap idea in a different direction from the failed pivots that hit the thickness floor.

methodKept plate dimensions near stock but thickened arms to 6.5mm, fattened the arm waist significantly, and switched material to pa12_cf with a thicker plate multiplier (×0.95) to clear the material's minimum-wall requirement.

resultValid this time — unlike the pa12_cf pivots that failed on thickness, ×0.95 plate thickness clears the 1.6mm floor — but at 9.285 it's the second-worst score of the generation, well behind 8.182. The thick arms and waist likely added drag-relevant mass with no aerodynamic payoff. Next: retry pa12_cf with this same thickness margin but slimmer arm dimensions to see if the material can actually pay off once mass is trimmed back.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.700	157.2	29.8°
cold_headwind	7.475	316.8	57.1°
crosswind	5.689	241.7	47.9°
gusty_light	5.060	214.9	58.0°
hot_thin	3.949	167.8	34.4°
storm	7.409	313.9	66.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.95
arm waist	×0.85
arm thickness	6.5 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	37.5°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	8.0°
plate thickness	×0.95
material	pa12_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 0e54d60fe01f✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	10.724 Wh/km
scenario mean	6.345 Wh/km
worst scenario	8.758 Wh/km
frame mass	158.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 17 via designer

hypothesisThe designer explores the opposite extreme from the population's slender-arm consensus — long, thick, full-waist arms — to test whether a much stiffer, beefier structure could offset drag with reliability, even though prior generations have favored slim arms.

methodLengthened arms 25%, widened them 10%, kept full arm waist with no taper, and thickened arms to 6.0mm, all with stock plate/sweep geometry.

resultValid but the worst score of the generation at 10.724 — confirms that long, thick, untapered arms carry a heavy drag/weight penalty across every scenario, especially storm (8.62) and cold_headwind (8.76). This closes off the 'just make everything bigger and stiffer' direction the population had been drifting away from. Next: abandon full-waist heavy arms entirely and focus designer proposals on slimming waist/thickness further from the 8.182 leader's already-slender profile.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	4.076	173.2	30.3°
cold_headwind	8.758	366.9	58.9°
crosswind	6.498	276.1	50.7°
gusty_light	5.757	244.5	61.6°
hot_thin	4.357	185.1	35.3°
storm	8.624	362.4	62.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.25
arm width	×1.10
arm waist	×1.00
arm thickness	6.0 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	37.5°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	10.0°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 44742a2a1206

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pa12_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	63.6 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 17 via pivot

hypothesisParent 168c3f15a835 is the current best-so-far at 8.182; this pivot bets that blending in a tougher/lighter pa12_cf material along with a fatter arm waist and rebalanced sweep angles could shave off more weight and drag while keeping structural margin.

methodBlended in a pa12_cf material fraction, thickened the arm waist about 18%, and swapped sweep balance (more rear sweep, slightly less front sweep).

resultInvalid — it carried over the parent's thin plate thickness without accounting for pa12_cf's stricter minimum wall (needs ≥1.6mm, had 1.4mm). Material swaps clearly need a coupled plate-thickness bump or they blow the print-strength floor. Worth testing next: pair any pa12_cf trial with plate thickness ≥0.80× stock.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.65
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	31.5°
rear sweep	40.9°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	29.9 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 98bd798cfca2

click to open the 3D model

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	85.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 17 via pivot

hypothesisWith second-tier parent 9354d3181c74 sitting at 8.248, this pivot wagers that shortening the plate and rebalancing sweep toward more front bias could squeeze out further gains.

methodShrank plate length about 13%, thinned plate thickness slightly, and swung front sweep wider while pulling rear sweep tighter.

resultInvalid — the combined plate-length and thickness cuts left the mid-plate web under the required gauge (1.12mm vs 1.47mm minimum). Stacking two shrink axes on the same structural feature is risky. Next: cut only one of plate length or thickness per trial to isolate which the web can actually tolerate.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.97
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	43.3°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×0.85
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	32.3 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.78
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 31e0f4cd9600

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pet_cf (1.4 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	77.7 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 17 via pivot

hypothesisTrailing parent 39f194f2e8c6 (8.41) prompted a bet that a steeper battery wedge for better CG, plus a lighter pet_cf material and shorter arms, could close the gap to the leader.

methodTilted the battery wedge up, blended in pet_cf material, shortened the arms by a quarter, and pulled rear sweep in tighter.

resultInvalid — same failure mode as candidate 44742a2a1206: pet_cf carries the same ≥1.6mm minimum plate thickness the ×0.71 plates didn't meet. Two pivots this generation independently hit this wall, confirming composite-material swaps are hard-gated by plate thickness. Next: bake in a thickness floor whenever material genes move away from cf_plate baseline.

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	4.6 mm
front sweep	37.2°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.06
plate width	×1.25
deck gap	35.4 mm
battery wedge	8.5°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	pet_cf

parents

candidate ea727fbdfbf6

click to open the 3D model

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	90.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 17 via pivot

hypothesisBet that lengthening the arms while narrowing the plate and sweeping the front arms much wider could trim frontal drag without abandoning the proven cf_plate material.

methodStretched arm length about 22%, narrowed plate width 20%, opened front sweep by 11°, and shaved plate thickness slightly.

resultInvalid — narrowing the plate while also thinning it pushed the main plate web below the 1.90mm cf_plate minimum. Same lesson as the plate-web failures elsewhere this generation: compounding two shrink axes on the plate overshoots the structural floor. Next: test the wide-front-sweep-plus-long-arm combo alone, holding plate width/thickness at parent values.

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
front sweep	50.7°
rear sweep	42.9°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×0.85
deck gap	32.3 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.77
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 0986a5262b2a

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	90.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 17 via pivot

hypothesisDrawing from the leader 168c3f15a835, this pivot tries widening the plate and thickening the arms slightly for more stiffness margin while tightening rear sweep for less drag.

methodWidened the plate 14%, thickened arms and arm cross-section marginally, and pulled rear sweep in by 3.5°.

resultInvalid — tightening rear sweep while widening the arms shrank the geometric margin between rotor disks until they overlapped. Rear-sweep reduction isn't free once arm width/thickness grow — clearance budget gets consumed from both ends. Next: try the plate-width/arm-thickness increase alone at the parent's original rear sweep to see if it survives clearance.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.14
deck gap	30.3 mm
battery wedge	14.6°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 00f12b205087

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.40 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	127.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 17 via pivot

hypothesisNear-leader parent 3ae2747c7d03 (8.191) prompted a stiffness-first bet: nearly double the arm thickness for rigidity while shrinking the plate footprint to offset the added arm mass.

methodAlmost doubled arm thickness, swept the rear arms out by 10°, and shrank both plate length and width by 9-15%.

resultInvalid, and badly so — the plate web collapsed to 0.40mm against a 1.90mm requirement, meaning the plate-shrink genes ate far more structural budget than intended once the arms got so much thicker. Massive arm-thickness jumps appear to steal material allowance from the plate elsewhere in the mesh. Next: increase arm thickness in isolation, leaving plate length/width at parent values, to find the real coupling.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.86
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	7.4 mm
front sweep	33.2°
rear sweep	47.4°
plate length	×0.85
plate width	×0.91
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 8a7c0d17a70a

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.93 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	130.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 17 via immigrant

hypothesisAn immigrant injects fresh diversity outside the current lineage, exploring a long-arm/high-sweep/thick-plate combination the population hadn't tried, to test whether an unrelated region of design space beats the incumbent lineage.

methodFully random fresh genome: notably longer arms (33% over stock), thicker plate multiplier (×1.03) but paired with a narrower plate width and a steep 52° rear sweep.

resultInvalid — despite the thicker plate multiplier, the narrow width and extreme geometry still left the main web under the 1.90mm floor, showing the plate-thickness multiplier alone doesn't guarantee wall thickness once width also shrinks. Random immigrants keep surfacing this same plate-width/thickness interaction as the binding constraint. Next: bias immigrant sampling away from narrow-plate-width plus high-sweep combinations that reliably fail the web check.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.33
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.63
arm thickness	5.2 mm
front sweep	40.5°
rear sweep	52.2°
plate length	×1.12
plate width	×0.94
deck gap	35.0 mm
battery wedge	10.7°
plate thickness	×1.03
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate ddea5bee841a

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	87.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 17 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two near-leader designs (8.191 and 8.296) aims to combine their strengths — slightly thicker arms with a slightly shorter, tighter frame — for incremental gains.

methodBlended genes from both parents: thickened arms marginally, shortened arm length 10%, and trimmed plate length/width about 2% each.

resultInvalid — shortening the arms while thickening them ate into rotor tip clearance until the disks overlapped, the same failure mode seen in candidate 0986a5262b2a. Two independent designs this generation hit tip-clearance when arm length shrinks alongside arm thickness growth. Next: hold arm length at or above the parent value whenever arm thickness increases, to protect clearance margin.

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	4.4 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	37.5°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	30.7 mm
battery wedge	14.5°
plate thickness	×0.76
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 890a68ddc350

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_top 1.12 mm, stock 1.75 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	84.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 17 via crossover

hypothesisA self-cross of near-leader 3ae2747c7d03 (8.191) explores mutation-scale variance around a strong genome, testing whether a fatter arm waist and shorter plate with slightly more deck gap can eke out further gains.

methodShrank plate length 9%, fattened arm waist 16%, nudged plate thickness up slightly, and widened the deck gap by 1.4mm.

resultInvalid — despite plate thickness nominally increasing, the top plate web still fell short (1.12mm vs 1.75mm), suggesting the plate-length reduction dominates the thickness gain in the mesh's local wall calculation at the top plate. Self-crosses aren't immune to the plate-shrink failure mode seen across this generation. Next: isolate plate-length reduction from thickness change entirely — test length-only trims at parent thickness.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.92
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.64
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	37.5°
plate length	×0.91
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	31.4 mm
battery wedge	14.9°
plate thickness	×0.81
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 9354d3181c74

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.248 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.962 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.573 Wh/km
frame mass	89.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 16 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two closely matched near-best parents (1bdb748b646e at 8.25, 3ae2747c7d03 at 8.191), the bet was that blending their sweep angles would land in between and edge toward the best-so-far.

methodNudged front sweep up slightly and rear sweep down slightly, with plate length and width essentially unchanged from the parents.

resultFitness came in at 8.248, landing almost exactly between the two parents but still short of the 8.182 best-so-far. The sweep blend produced no real gain, suggesting this region of the genome is near a local plateau. Worth testing: hold sweep fixed and instead vary battery wedge, which sits at an untried 0.0 degrees here.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.441	146.2	29.0°
cold_headwind	6.504	276.3	55.4°
crosswind	5.004	212.6	44.7°
gusty_light	4.549	193.3	54.1°
hot_thin	3.701	157.2	33.1°
storm	6.573	279.1	64.0°

gene	value
arm length	×0.97
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	39.4°
rear sweep	42.6°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	32.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.81
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a0f7f82b19d8

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.296 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.001 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.589 Wh/km
frame mass	94.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 16 via pivot

hypothesisParent 3ae2747c7d03 (8.191) nearly matched the frontier, so this pivot bet that small, simultaneous plate- and arm-thickness bumps would buy structural safety margin at minimal efficiency cost.

methodThickened the plate by about 25%, thickened the arm slightly, trimmed plate width fractionally, and nudged deck gap up by 0.8 mm.

resultFitness landed at 8.296, close to but worse than its parent's 8.191 and the 8.182 best-so-far. The small added mass from the thicker plate and arm outweighed any safety-margin benefit. Worth testing: probe thinner plate/arm settings in isolation to locate the true minimum-mass structural limit near this genome.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.506	149.0	29.0°
cold_headwind	6.459	274.4	54.5°
crosswind	5.094	216.4	44.5°
gusty_light	4.600	195.4	53.1°
hot_thin	3.759	159.7	33.1°
storm	6.589	279.8	62.9°

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.4 mm
front sweep	32.9°
rear sweep	37.4°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	30.8 mm
battery wedge	14.6°
plate thickness	×0.94
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 2357e4a8a875

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.345 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.023 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.643 Wh/km
frame mass	87.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 16 via pivot

hypothesisUsing the stronger parent f6f70bc57a13 (8.294) as base, this pivot bet that a steeper battery-wedge tilt combined with a narrower front sweep could shift CG and trim losses seen in the weaker co-parent.

methodIncreased battery wedge tilt substantially (roughly 7.7 to 12.9 degrees), narrowed front sweep by about 4 degrees, and nudged plate length up slightly.

resultFitness came in at 8.345, just short of the parent's own 8.294 and off the 8.182 best-so-far. Close, but the narrower front sweep likely cost more in crosswind/storm drag than the wedge shift recovered. Worth testing: the battery-wedge increase alone, holding front sweep at the 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	3.484	148.0	29.1°
cold_headwind	6.573	279.2	55.7°
crosswind	5.101	216.7	45.1°
gusty_light	4.607	195.7	54.5°
hot_thin	3.731	158.5	33.4°
storm	6.643	282.0	64.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.96
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	32.5°
rear sweep	40.6°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	33.9 mm
battery wedge	12.9°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 39f194f2e8c6

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.410 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.062 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.696 Wh/km
frame mass	97.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 16 via pivot

hypothesisParent 722bb4a8c6a8 (8.364) was solid but not competitive with the frontier, so this pivot bet that a much wider plate plus shorter, thicker arms would trade drag for stiffness.

methodWidened plate width by about 20%, shortened arm length by 15%, thickened the arm stock, and opened the deck gap slightly.

resultFitness came in at 8.41 - worse than its stronger parent's 8.364 and well off the 8.182 best-so-far. The large plate-width increase likely added more mass/drag than the shorter arms saved. Worth testing: the same arm shortening with a much smaller plate-width bump, or none 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	3.515	149.3	29.0°
cold_headwind	6.615	281.0	55.4°
crosswind	5.130	218.0	44.9°
gusty_light	4.643	197.3	54.2°
hot_thin	3.773	160.3	33.2°
storm	6.696	284.3	63.9°

gene	value
arm length	×0.92
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.6 mm
front sweep	37.2°
rear sweep	41.6°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.22
deck gap	35.2 mm
battery wedge	1.5°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 2c0081edaa6e

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.551 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.143 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.816 Wh/km
frame mass	100.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 16 via pivot

hypothesisParent f6f70bc57a13 (8.294) was near the frontier, so this pivot bet that a much thicker plate plus a larger deck gap would add stiffness and stack clearance headroom.

methodIncreased plate thickness by roughly 50%, opened the deck gap by about 7 mm, and widened both front sweep and arm width modestly.

resultFitness landed at 8.551, worse than the parent's 8.294 and the 8.182 best-so-far. The extra plate mass and enlarged deck gap outweighed any stiffness or clearance benefit across every scenario. Worth testing: the plate-thickness increase in isolation, with deck gap left near baseline.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.564	151.4	29.2°
cold_headwind	6.742	286.3	55.5°
crosswind	5.206	221.2	45.1°
gusty_light	4.714	200.3	54.3°
hot_thin	3.817	162.1	33.4°
storm	6.816	289.3	64.0°

gene	value
arm length	×0.96
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.1 mm
front sweep	39.4°
rear sweep	40.2°
plate length	×1.01
plate width	×1.04
deck gap	41.2 mm
battery wedge	7.8°
plate thickness	×1.05
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 96878b1ca46d✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.782 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.267 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.030 Wh/km
frame mass	95.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 16 via designer

hypothesisA designer-proposed genome bet that longer, slender arms (more leverage, same thin cross-section as the winning lineage) would improve efficiency via better prop clearance and aerodynamics.

methodStretched arm length by about 28% while keeping the thin arm width, waist, and thickness of the best lineage, with modest plate and battery-wedge settings.

resultFitness landed at 8.782, worse than the 8.182 best-so-far and the elite pivot tier around 8.25, with all six scenarios degrading roughly proportionally. The extra arm length added mass and drag without a matching efficiency payoff. Worth testing: dial arm length back toward stock (~x1.0) while keeping the thin cross-section, to find whether near-baseline length is 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	3.566	151.5	29.5°
cold_headwind	7.030	298.4	57.0°
crosswind	5.376	228.4	46.9°
gusty_light	4.809	204.3	56.9°
hot_thin	3.815	162.1	33.9°
storm	7.004	297.2	66.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.28
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	38.0°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	33.0 mm
battery wedge	14.5°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate dea5769fcfb3

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.977 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.397 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.160 Wh/km
frame mass	117.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 16 via pivot

hypothesisDrawing on f6f70bc57a13 (8.294), this pivot bet that visibly beefier arms would improve robustness in the harsher scenarios like storm and cold headwind, even at a mass cost.

methodIncreased arm thickness by about 50% (to 6.1 mm) and widened the arm waist, with small offsetting tweaks to battery wedge and arm width.

resultFitness fell to 8.977, clearly worse than both parents and the 8.182 best-so-far, with every scenario degrading by roughly 4-5% uniformly. This confirms the arms were already near an efficient minimum and simply do not need more material. Worth testing: revert arm thickness toward 4 mm and isolate the arm-waist 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	3.715	157.8	29.4°
cold_headwind	7.091	301.0	56.0°
crosswind	5.501	233.7	45.5°
gusty_light	4.945	210.1	55.2°
hot_thin	3.971	168.7	33.7°
storm	7.160	303.8	64.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.97
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.66
arm thickness	6.1 mm
front sweep	36.8°
rear sweep	40.8°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	33.8 mm
battery wedge	7.2°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 8306b049970e✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	10.254 Wh/km
scenario mean	6.108 Wh/km
worst scenario	8.292 Wh/km
frame mass	139.2 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 16 via designer

hypothesisA designer-proposed contrarian genome tested whether a deliberately heavier, wider-armed pa12_cf build could win on robustness in adverse scenarios, breaking from the thin cf_plate consensus.

methodHand-set wide, thick arms (8.5 mm), switched material to pa12_cf, and kept plate dimensions and deck gap near baseline.

resultFitness came in at 10.254, far worse than the 8.182 best-so-far and every other candidate this generation, with storm and cold-headwind scenarios both near 8.2-8.3 Wh/km. This decisively confirms the thin cf_plate arm strategy dominates the heavy pa12_cf approach. Worth testing: abandon the pa12_cf/thick-arm direction and focus designer picks on refining the cf_plate plate-thickness boundary instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	4.004	170.1	30.3°
cold_headwind	8.292	349.4	58.1°
crosswind	6.303	267.8	49.5°
gusty_light	5.565	236.4	59.9°
hot_thin	4.265	181.2	35.1°
storm	8.220	346.7	64.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×1.15
arm waist	×1.00
arm thickness	8.5 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	38.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	8.0°
plate thickness	×0.90
material	pa12_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 223bdabefa34

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.92 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	85.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 16 via pivot

hypothesisBoth parents sat well above the frontier (8.486 and 9.425), so this pivot bet on shrinking the plate footprint and narrowing the front sweep to cut mass and drag simultaneously.

methodShrank plate length and width by roughly 10%, narrowed front sweep by about 3 degrees, and thinned the arm stock slightly.

resultInvalid: the plate web collapsed to 0.92 mm against a 1.90 mm stock minimum. Shrinking length and width together without compensating plate thickness pushed the structure below the manufacturing floor. Worth testing: repeat the footprint shrink but pair it with a plate-thickness increase to preserve web margin.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.97
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	34.2°
rear sweep	42.8°
plate length	×0.89
plate width	×0.94
deck gap	32.4 mm
battery wedge	2.4°
plate thickness	×0.87
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 096d69012fa9

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	87.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 16 via pivot

hypothesisBred directly from the reigning best-so-far genome (168c3f15a835), this pivot bet that fattening the arm waist would buy structural margin cheaply while trimming rear sweep for less drag.

methodIncreased arm waist thickness by about 40% and reduced rear sweep by roughly 3 degrees, with minor battery-wedge and plate-width nudges.

resultInvalid: the arm-root tongues collided on the main plate. Fattening the waist while narrowing rear sweep removed the clearance the elite lineage depended on, so even a champion-derived design can break on simple geometric interference. Worth testing: widen the arm waist only while holding or increasing rear sweep, not narrowing it.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.96
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.79
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	32.8°
rear sweep	34.2°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b8195b9218e9

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_top 1.15 mm, stock 1.75 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	89.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 16 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing near-best 3ae2747c7d03 (8.191) with mid-performer 8ca4a669cb30 (8.538), the bet was that a slightly shrunk plate footprint plus thicker arms would cut mass while keeping strength.

methodShrank plate length and width by a few percent, thickened the arm stock, and tightened the deck gap by 1 mm.

resultInvalid: the plate_top web thinned to 1.15 mm against a 1.75 mm stock minimum, the same failure mode seen in candidate 223bdabefa34. Shrinking plate footprint without a compensating thickness increase reliably breaks the web-thickness constraint. Worth testing: never shrink plate length/width without simultaneously raising plate thickness.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.6 mm
front sweep	32.9°
rear sweep	37.5°
plate length	×0.93
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	29.0 mm
battery wedge	14.4°
plate thickness	×0.76
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 3771ca514b69

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	165.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 16 via immigrant

hypothesisA fresh random immigrant was injected to diversify the gene pool away from the converging cf_plate lineage, exploring longer arms and a fatter waist blind to prior lineage performance.

methodRandomly drew a genome with 9% longer arms, a narrower but fatter waist, thicker arm stock (5.9 mm), a tight 22.6 mm deck gap, and a heavy plate-thickness multiplier.

resultInvalid: the 22.6 mm deck gap was too small to fit the FC/ESC stack. The random draw landed in an infeasible region of the deck-gap parameter space before any performance could be measured. Worth testing: raise the minimum deck-gap bound in the immigrant sampler to stop wasting evaluations on stack-clearance failures.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.09
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×1.16
arm thickness	5.9 mm
front sweep	41.2°
rear sweep	45.3°
plate length	×1.06
plate width	×1.04
deck gap	22.6 mm
battery wedge	11.5°
plate thickness	×1.49
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate b5cb33a35562

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	82.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 16 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the reigning best-so-far 168c3f15a835 (8.182) with close competitor 1bdb748b646e (8.25), the bet was that a small deck-gap trim would shave mass without leaving the validated envelope.

methodShrank deck gap by 0.6 mm and trimmed battery wedge and both sweep angles marginally.

resultInvalid: rotor clearance to the deck/battery was violated. Even a tiny 0.6 mm deck-gap cut pushed the elite lineage past its clearance margin, showing the current champion design is already sitting near the deck-gap floor. Worth testing: leave deck gap untouched near the champion's value and vary only sweep or wedge genes when breeding from this parent.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	32.8°
rear sweep	37.8°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	29.4 mm
battery wedge	13.8°
plate thickness	×0.72
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 36659c0e191e

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.17 mm, stock 1.47 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	158.8 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 16 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing best-so-far 168c3f15a835 (8.182) with an unevaluated/invalid heavy-arm pa12_cf parent, the bet was that combining champion genes with a thicker-arm material swap might rescue the failed parent's design.

methodPulled arm thickness (up to 9.0 mm), waist, and length from the heavy pa12_cf parent, kept its material choice, and moderated battery wedge slightly.

resultInvalid: the plate_mid web again came in too thin (1.17 mm vs 1.47 mm stock), inheriting the null-fitness parent's structural deficit doomed the cross before it could even be evaluated for performance. Worth testing: exclude invalid/null-fitness genomes as crossover parents, or explicitly correct their known constraint violations before breeding from them.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.04
arm width	×1.17
arm waist	×1.04
arm thickness	9.0 mm
front sweep	39.8°
rear sweep	43.9°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×0.88
deck gap	24.2 mm
battery wedge	10.3°
plate thickness	×1.31
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 1bdb748b646e

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.250 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.963 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.574 Wh/km
frame mass	89.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 14 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing f1e5b0a6016e and b142234d3907 bet that zeroing out battery wedge tilt entirely, following the trend in recent strong designs, would tighten the gap to the champion.

methodSet battery wedge to 0.0° (from 3.1°), shrank plate length to 0.98x (from 1.05x), widened arms slightly to 0.84x, and nudged front sweep to 38.8°.

resultFitness 8.25, beating both parents (8.291 and 8.426) and coming within about 0.06 of the 8.191 best-so-far — the closest challenger this generation, though not a new winner. The zero-wedge, trimmed-plate combination is clearly on the right track, echoing the champion's own low-wedge balance. Worth combining this zero-wedge/trimmed-plate recipe with the champion's exact arm-length and sweep values to try to finally clear 8.191.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.439	146.1	29.0°
cold_headwind	6.519	276.9	55.5°
crosswind	4.999	212.4	44.7°
gusty_light	4.547	193.2	54.2°
hot_thin	3.699	157.2	33.1°
storm	6.574	279.1	63.8°

gene	value
arm length	×0.97
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	38.8°
rear sweep	43.1°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	32.2 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×0.81
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate f0a828516679

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.257 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.967 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.580 Wh/km
frame mass	89.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 15 via crossover

hypothesisParents 1bdb748b646e (8.25) and 27a59c891173 (8.366) bracketed the plateau; this cross bets inheriting the better parent's frame almost unchanged, with a hair of battery tilt, nudges past it.

methodKept nearly the entire frame at the better parent's values, adding only a tiny 0.2° battery wedge where the parent had none.

result8.257 — landed almost exactly between the two parents and just behind 1bdb748b646e's 8.25, so the added wedge didn't help; not a new best against the 8.191 record. Confirms this frame region is a stable, competitive basin. Worth testing next: try a small negative wedge instead of a positive nudge.

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	29.0°
cold_headwind	6.525	277.1	55.5°
crosswind	5.003	212.5	44.7°
gusty_light	4.551	193.3	54.2°
hot_thin	3.701	157.2	33.1°
storm	6.580	279.4	63.8°

gene	value
arm length	×0.97
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	38.8°
rear sweep	43.1°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	32.2 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×0.81
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate f6f70bc57a13

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.294 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.991 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.606 Wh/km
frame mass	85.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 15 via crossover

hypothesisParents 3a1600ed82df (8.417) and 4e158b076b86 (8.488) both carried fairly thick plates; the bet is that a noticeably thinner, slightly shorter plate cuts mass enough to beat both.

methodCut plate thickness substantially, trimmed plate length and arm length slightly, and nudged the material blend a touch away from pure cf_plate.

result8.294 — a solid improvement over both parents but still short of the 8.191 best-so-far, with storm again the dominant drag term. The thinner plate paid off without breaking structural limits, suggesting this is a productive direction. Worth testing next: combine this plate-thinning with the reigning champion's arm geometry.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.459	147.0	29.1°
cold_headwind	6.543	277.9	55.7°
crosswind	5.052	214.6	44.9°
gusty_light	4.577	194.5	54.4°
hot_thin	3.709	157.6	33.3°
storm	6.606	280.4	64.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.96
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	36.8°
rear sweep	40.6°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	33.8 mm
battery wedge	7.7°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 9780185b6d33✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.321 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.013 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.616 Wh/km
frame mass	90.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 15 via designer

hypothesisBuilding on the same slender-arm recipe as its sibling designer candidate, this one bets a longer, wider plate and more rear sweep add cargo/stability margin worth the extra mass.

methodUsed the same thin-arm, low-waist recipe as 168c3f15a835 but lengthened the plate by 15%, widened it by 8%, swept the rear arms back further to 44°, and moderated the battery wedge to 12°.

result8.321 — worse than its sibling's 8.182 new-best and short of the 8.191 prior record, though still competitive. The larger plate and reduced wedge cost more in mass/drag than they gained in stability, confirming the thinner/smaller-plate direction is the more productive lever. Worth testing next: keep this rear-sweep angle but shrink the plate back toward stock size to isolate the plate-size effect.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.489	148.2	29.1°
cold_headwind	6.534	277.5	55.6°
crosswind	5.100	216.7	45.2°
gusty_light	4.599	195.4	54.4°
hot_thin	3.738	158.8	33.2°
storm	6.616	280.9	64.1°

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	44.0°
plate length	×1.15
plate width	×1.08
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	12.0°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 722bb4a8c6a8✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.364 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.030 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.668 Wh/km
frame mass	89.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 15 via designer

hypothesisWith the plateau favoring slender arms and low waist ratio, the designer hand-crafts a candidate testing whether lengthening the arms slightly beyond the current consensus adds useful reach without extra drag.

methodSet arm length about 8% above stock with the slim 0.75x width and 0.55x waist and a thin 4.0 mm wall, kept a modest plate size, and used only a slight 1.5° battery wedge.

result8.364 — middling, better than some crossovers this generation but well short of the 8.191 best-so-far, with storm again the largest contributor. The extra arm length likely added drag without a stability payoff. Worth testing next: same slim-arm recipe with arm length trimmed back toward stock.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.460	147.0	29.1°
cold_headwind	6.635	281.8	56.2°
crosswind	5.094	216.4	45.2°
gusty_light	4.604	195.6	55.1°
hot_thin	3.718	157.9	33.3°
storm	6.668	283.1	64.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.08
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	37.0°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	33.0 mm
battery wedge	1.5°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 6e6de57351a6

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.486 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.103 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.767 Wh/km
frame mass	99.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 15 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents (fitness 8.366 and 8.284) sat mid-plateau with somewhat bulky plates; this cross bets a narrower, thinner plate paired with a beefier arm root sheds mass without losing stiffness.

methodTrimmed plate width and thickness versus the parent baseline, thickened the arm wall to 4.4 mm, and pulled the arm waist in slightly.

resultLanded at 8.486, worse than either parent and well off the 8.191 best-so-far, with storm and cold-headwind drag both up. The thicker arm likely added more mass than the plate trimming saved. Worth testing next: repeat the plate trim but leave arm thickness at the parent's 4.0 mm to isolate the effect.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.526	149.8	29.1°
cold_headwind	6.704	284.7	55.8°
crosswind	5.155	219.0	45.0°
gusty_light	4.675	198.6	54.6°
hot_thin	3.789	161.0	33.3°
storm	6.767	287.3	64.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.97
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.59
arm thickness	4.4 mm
front sweep	37.3°
rear sweep	42.8°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	32.5 mm
battery wedge	2.3°
plate thickness	×0.87
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 8ca4a669cb30

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.538 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.134 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.808 Wh/km
frame mass	96.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 15 via crossover

hypothesisParents 9b103455a019 (8.428) and 3a1600ed82df (8.417) were mid-pack with moderate wedge; this cross bets a longer plate and wider deck gap add stability margin worth the extra mass.

methodThickened the arm wall to 4.4 mm, opened the deck gap by about 1.4 mm, lengthened the plate slightly, and eased the battery wedge down half a degree.

result8.538 — worse than both parents and further from the 8.191 best-so-far, with every scenario a touch worse, especially storm and cold-headwind. The combined extra mass added drag without a stiffness or stability payoff. Worth testing next: revert the deck-gap widening alone, the change with the least obvious aerodynamic benefit.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.521	149.6	29.2°
cold_headwind	6.774	287.6	56.4°
crosswind	5.219	221.7	45.5°
gusty_light	4.701	199.7	55.4°
hot_thin	3.780	160.6	33.5°
storm	6.808	289.0	65.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.4 mm
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	40.1°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	35.5 mm
battery wedge	5.6°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 6237ee135972

click to open the 3D model

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	164.3 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 15 via immigrant

hypothesisA random immigrant meant to keep genetic diversity, testing a much beefier, wider arm and stiffer plate/wedge combo far outside the slender-arm consensus currently winning.

methodFresh random genome: arm length and width increased, arm thickness nearly doubled to 8.2 mm, a steep 12.5° battery wedge, and a switch to pet_cf material.

resultInvalid — the plate web came out too thin (1.51 mm vs 1.90 mm stock) once resolved, so it never flew. This shows the current plate-thickness range lacks margin when combined with pet_cf's manufacturing limits. Worth testing next: pair any pet_cf immigrant with a plate-thickness floor check up front.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.06
arm width	×1.16
arm waist	×1.00
arm thickness	8.2 mm
front sweep	39.2°
rear sweep	44.1°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×0.87
deck gap	24.4 mm
battery wedge	12.5°
plate thickness	×1.31
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate bdc26fbe1fcd

click to open the 3D model

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 15 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents (8.25 and 8.284) were solid cf_plate designs; this cross bets that swapping toward a lighter pa12_cf blend plus a slimmer arm could push past the plateau on mass alone.

methodSwitched material toward pa12_cf, thinned the arm width, added a small 1.1° battery wedge, and widened the plate slightly.

resultInvalid on arm tip deflection — pa12_cf's lower stiffness couldn't support the slimmed arm under load. Confirms material swaps away from cf_plate need a compensating width or thickness increase. Worth testing next: the same wedge/plate-width changes but keep cf_plate.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.97
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	38.8°
rear sweep	42.9°
plate length	×0.98
plate width	×1.09
deck gap	32.4 mm
battery wedge	1.1°
plate thickness	×0.81
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 3e9a6558d859

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	105.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 15 via crossover

hypothesisParents ea2f17d42f86 (8.274) and f1e5b0a6016e (8.291) were close performers; this cross bets a longer plate and thicker arm add stiffness headroom for the worst crosswind/storm cases.

methodThickened the arm wall to 4.9 mm, lengthened the plate by about 9%, pulled front sweep back a couple degrees, and nudged the battery wedge up slightly.

resultInvalid — the longer plate and shifted sweep left the arm tongue bolts unable to reach the main plate, a geometry-compatibility failure rather than a structural one. Shows plate-length changes must stay coupled with arm-mount sweep. Worth testing next: same arm-thickness bet with plate length held at the parent value.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.96
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.9 mm
front sweep	36.9°
rear sweep	44.3°
plate length	×1.12
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	35.6 mm
battery wedge	2.0°
plate thickness	×0.81
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate de258dd8ec43

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	91.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 15 via mutation

hypothesisParent 27a59c891173 (8.366) had middling drag across all scenarios; this mutation bets reshaping the front/rear sweep asymmetry better aligns the arms with the dominant wind directions.

methodSwept the front arms back about 5° less while raking the rear arms about 3° further back than the parent.

resultInvalid — the altered sweep pair again misaligned the arm tongue bolts with the main plate, the same failure seen in 3e9a6558d859. A second data point that sweep changes of more than a few degrees break the tongue/plate bolt fit. Worth testing next: a much smaller 1-2° sweep nudge to find the safe margin.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.97
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.6°
rear sweep	46.2°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	32.2 mm
battery wedge	2.9°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 7517d1e953fb

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	89.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 15 via crossover

hypothesisParents 307849f1f4ef (8.284) and 3a1600ed82df (8.417) both carried a large battery wedge; the bet was that shorter arms with the same steep wedge trim mass and drag further.

methodShortened arm length by roughly 10% relative to the parent baseline while keeping the wedge near 14° and thickening the arm wall slightly.

resultInvalid — the shorter arms combined with the existing sweep/wedge geometry brought the rotor disks close enough to overlap, failing tip clearance. Shows arm-length cuts on high-wedge frames have little margin before props collide. Worth testing next: same wedge/thickness change with arm length left at the parent value.

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	4.7 mm
front sweep	33.6°
rear sweep	37.5°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	29.8 mm
battery wedge	14.0°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 1a01728afe54

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	85.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 15 via mutation

hypothesisParent 3ae2747c7d03 (8.191, the prior best-so-far) was already near-optimal; this mutation bets thickening the plate and easing the battery wedge buys extra structural margin.

methodIncreased plate thickness noticeably, shortened arm length by about 8%, eased the battery wedge down about 1°, and trimmed plate width slightly.

resultInvalid — shortening arm length on this already-tight champion geometry pushed the rotor disks into tip-clearance overlap. Shows the reigning best-so-far has essentially no arm-length slack left. Worth testing next: same plate-thickness/wedge changes with arm length held fixed at the parent's value.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.87
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	37.5°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	13.4°
plate thickness	×0.88
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 66b9e14e363b

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	107.9 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 15 via immigrant

hypothesisA random immigrant testing a short, wide-waisted arm with a long plate, exploring far outside the slender-arm/short-plate consensus that's been winning.

methodFresh random genome: arm length cut by nearly a quarter, arm waist widened above stock, plate lengthened by almost 30%, and a thicker pa12_cf plate.

resultInvalid — the short, wide-waisted arms combined with the long plate again produced rotor tip-clearance overlap, the third such failure this generation. Reinforces that arm length below roughly 0.85-0.9x stock is unsafe under current sweep/wedge ranges regardless of material. Worth testing next: cap the immigrant sampler's minimum arm-length multiplier.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.77
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×1.24
arm thickness	5.5 mm
front sweep	39.6°
rear sweep	41.3°
plate length	×1.29
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	31.4 mm
battery wedge	2.7°
plate thickness	×1.22
material	pa12_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate ea2f17d42f86

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.274 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.979 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.591 Wh/km
frame mass	90.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 14 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing f1e5b0a6016e and 7419216b71e9 bet that opening the deck gap while nearly zeroing battery wedge tilt could cut trim drag across the scenario suite.

methodWidened the deck gap to 35.6mm (from 32.1mm), reduced battery wedge tilt to 1.8° (from 3.1°), increased rear sweep slightly to 44.2°, and tightened plate length to 1.03x.

resultFitness 8.274, beating both parents (8.291 and 8.367) — a solid improvement, but still short of the 8.191 best-so-far, not a new winner. The near-zero battery wedge appears to be paying off consistently, echoing the low-wedge configuration that works in the current champion. Worth pushing battery wedge fully to 0° on this same arm-sweep combination 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	3.454	146.7	29.0°
cold_headwind	6.525	277.1	55.5°
crosswind	5.026	213.5	44.8°
gusty_light	4.564	193.9	54.2°
hot_thin	3.711	157.7	33.2°
storm	6.591	279.8	63.9°

gene	value
arm length	×0.96
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	38.9°
rear sweep	44.2°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	35.6 mm
battery wedge	1.8°
plate thickness	×0.81
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 307849f1f4ef

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.284 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.992 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.584 Wh/km
frame mass	91.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 14 via crossover

hypothesisA self-cross of the champion probes whether small perturbations to arm thickness and front sweep around the current best design can find further gains nearby.

methodThickened arms slightly to 4.5mm (from 4.0mm) and increased front sweep marginally to 33.7° (from 33.0°), leaving every other gene identical to the champion.

resultFitness 8.284, worse than the 8.191 champion on both copies — the extra arm thickness added weight without an aero or structural payoff, and the small sweep bump didn't compensate. Confirms the champion's exact arm-thickness/front-sweep combination is a local optimum in this direction. Worth testing thinner arms instead, to see if the champion still has weight-saving margin left.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.488	148.2	29.0°
cold_headwind	6.474	275.0	54.8°
crosswind	5.081	215.8	44.8°
gusty_light	4.588	194.9	53.4°
hot_thin	3.739	158.8	33.1°
storm	6.584	279.5	63.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.5 mm
front sweep	33.7°
rear sweep	37.5°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	14.5°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate f1e5b0a6016e

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.291 Wh/km
scenario mean	4.990 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.602 Wh/km
frame mass	90.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 13 via crossover

hypothesisStarting from the stronger parent 30f271aea977 (8.363), the bet was that pushing the battery wedge even flatter than either parent — extending a trend already paying off elsewhere this generation — would keep improving fitness.

methodFlattened battery wedge further from 6.0° to 3.1°, increased front sweep from 36.5° to 38.7°, widened arms slightly (×0.75→×0.79), and shortened arm length marginally.

result8.291 — the best valid result of the generation, clearing both parents (8.363 and 8.668) and closing to within about 0.1 Wh/km of the 8.191 champion, the closest challenge yet this run. This confirms the flatter-battery-wedge trend also seen in 5b277a1f090e's improvement. Worth testing: combine this 3.1° wedge with 5b277a1f090e's thicker plate to see if the two changes stack toward a 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	3.469	147.4	29.0°
cold_headwind	6.532	277.5	55.6°
crosswind	5.039	214.1	44.8°
gusty_light	4.574	194.3	54.3°
hot_thin	3.723	158.2	33.2°
storm	6.602	280.3	64.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.97
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	38.7°
rear sweep	43.1°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	32.1 mm
battery wedge	3.1°
plate thickness	×0.81
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 27a59c891173

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.366 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.032 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.670 Wh/km
frame mass	91.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 14 via crossover

hypothesisAlso crossing f1e5b0a6016e and 7419216b71e9, this candidate bets that widening the arms slightly while keeping battery wedge and sweep close to the leaner parent's values would preserve its edge.

methodWidened arms to 0.83x scale (from 0.79x), trimmed battery wedge to 2.9° (from 3.1°), and eased front sweep down to 38.4° (from 38.7°).

resultFitness 8.366, roughly matching the weaker parent (8.367) and clearly behind the stronger parent (8.291) and the 8.191 best-so-far. The arm-width increase seems to have erased the leaner parent's advantage without adding enough benefit elsewhere. Worth reverting arm width toward the leaner parent's value while keeping just the small wedge and sweep trims, mirroring what worked for ea2f17d42f86.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.478	147.7	29.1°
cold_headwind	6.633	281.7	56.1°
crosswind	5.071	215.4	45.0°
gusty_light	4.606	195.7	55.0°
hot_thin	3.732	158.6	33.3°
storm	6.670	283.1	64.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.97
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	38.4°
rear sweep	43.2°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	32.2 mm
battery wedge	2.9°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 3a1600ed82df

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.417 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.064 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.708 Wh/km
frame mass	90.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 14 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents sit just off the low-battery-wedge, moderate-sweep zone the champion occupies; this cross bets that nudging wedge angle and sweep up together, while thickening the arms slightly, could blend the two parents' partial strengths into something better.

methodIncreased battery mount tilt to about 7.8° (from 6.0°), steepened front sweep to 37.4° (from 36.5°), thickened arms to 0.77x scale (from 0.75x), and opened the deck gap marginally.

resultLanded at 8.417 Wh/km, worse than both parents (8.367, 8.291) and well off the 8.191 best-so-far — no new winner. Stacking the wedge and sweep increases together likely added drag and mass without complementary gains, most visible in the storm and cold-headwind legs. Worth testing the wedge and sweep changes independently to see which one is actually 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	3.492	148.4	29.2°
cold_headwind	6.668	283.2	56.2°
crosswind	5.133	218.1	45.2°
gusty_light	4.638	197.0	55.1°
hot_thin	3.744	159.0	33.4°
storm	6.708	284.7	64.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	37.4°
rear sweep	40.6°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	33.8 mm
battery wedge	7.8°
plate thickness	×0.78
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 9b103455a019

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.428 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.067 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.724 Wh/km
frame mass	89.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 14 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing 7419216b71e9 with the champion bet that thinning the plate further while widening the arms slightly could shave more weight off an already-strong design.

methodWidened arms to 0.84x scale (from 0.75x), thinned the plate to 0.70x (from 0.78x), opened the deck gap marginally to 34.1mm, and grew plate length to 1.06x.

resultFitness 8.428, worse than the 8.191 champion parent — the wider arms likely canceled out any savings from the thinner plate, moving away from the champion's balance rather than refining it. Worth testing the plate-thinning alone against unmodified champion arms to see if thin-plate savings hold up 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	3.482	147.9	29.2°
cold_headwind	6.702	284.6	56.4°
crosswind	5.123	217.6	45.3°
gusty_light	4.635	196.9	55.4°
hot_thin	3.734	158.7	33.4°
storm	6.724	285.4	65.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	36.3°
rear sweep	40.4°
plate length	×1.06
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	34.1 mm
battery wedge	6.1°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 4e158b076b86

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.488 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.103 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.770 Wh/km
frame mass	92.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 14 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing a mid-pack design with a failed, unevaluated design bet that lengthening the arms and adjusting sweep could rescue useful traits from the invalid parent.

methodLengthened arms to 1.07x scale (from 1.00x), eased front sweep to 35.7° (from 36.5°), increased battery wedge to 6.4°, and grew plate length to 1.06x.

resultFitness 8.488, worse than the valid parent's 8.363 and far off the 8.191 best-so-far. The longer arms and larger plate likely added mass and drag without an offsetting aero benefit, and pairing with an unevaluated parent didn't filter out whatever made it invalid. Worth testing arm-length increases against a known-valid baseline instead of an unevaluated parent.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.508	149.0	29.2°
cold_headwind	6.739	286.2	56.3°
crosswind	5.171	219.7	45.3°
gusty_light	4.670	198.4	55.3°
hot_thin	3.761	159.8	33.5°
storm	6.770	287.4	65.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.07
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	35.7°
rear sweep	42.7°
plate length	×1.06
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	6.4°
plate thickness	×0.79
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 7e4959f77e58

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.626 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.174 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.903 Wh/km
frame mass	95.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 14 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing 7419216b71e9 with the heavier d420a8640abd bet that widening the arm waist (thickening the arm's narrow midsection) could add stiffness worth the extra mass.

methodWidened the arm waist to 0.77x scale (from 0.55x), increased battery wedge to 6.7° (from 6.0°), and thickened the plate slightly to 0.80x.

resultFitness 8.626, worse than both parents (8.367, 8.518) and one of the weakest results this generation. Fattening the arm waist looks like a pure mass penalty with no offsetting benefit, consistent with the narrow-waist geometry mattering for keeping arm drag and weight down. Worth testing arm-waist values narrower than the 0.55x default to see if further tapering helps.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.525	149.8	29.3°
cold_headwind	6.903	293.0	56.8°
crosswind	5.226	222.0	45.8°
gusty_light	4.722	200.6	56.2°
hot_thin	3.781	160.6	33.6°
storm	6.888	292.3	65.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.77
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	36.4°
rear sweep	40.5°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	33.7 mm
battery wedge	6.7°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 171ca1034ea0

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.716 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.224 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.985 Wh/km
frame mass	99.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 14 via crossover

hypothesisCombining a mid-pack design with the heaviest parent bet that scaling up both arm width and plate width together would trade weight for stiffness worth having under storm loading.

methodWidened arms to 0.93x scale (from 0.76x), lengthened arms to 1.10x (from 1.02x), widened the plate to 1.10x, and thinned the plate slightly to 0.84x.

resultFitness 8.716 — worse than both parents (8.426, 8.518) and the weakest result this generation, far from the 8.191 best-so-far. Simultaneous arm and plate upsizing likely piled on drag and mass across every scenario with no stiffness payoff to offset it. Worth isolating arm-width growth from plate-width growth to find which one actually drives the penalty.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.540	150.4	29.3°
cold_headwind	6.985	296.5	56.9°
crosswind	5.286	224.6	46.0°
gusty_light	4.769	202.6	56.6°
hot_thin	3.803	161.6	33.7°
storm	6.959	295.3	65.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.10
arm width	×0.93
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	36.1°
rear sweep	43.0°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.10
deck gap	30.3 mm
battery wedge	6.3°
plate thickness	×0.84
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 1018824a40a7

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	97.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 14 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the reigning champion with a heavier, thicker-plate design aimed to pull plate thickness down toward the champion's leaner profile while keeping the heavier parent's steeper rear sweep.

methodThinned the main plate to about 1.09x scale (from 1.32x) and pulled rear sweep back to 44.8° (from 41.7°), leaving arm length and battery wedge nearly unchanged.

resultInvalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate. Thinning the plate while keeping a steep rear sweep evidently shifted the bolt pattern off the tongue footprint, a geometric interaction the genome doesn't currently guard against. Worth coupling plate-thickness cuts with a compensating deck-gap or plate-length adjustment so bolt holes stay aligned.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.02
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	34.3°
rear sweep	44.8°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	29.2 mm
battery wedge	14.9°
plate thickness	×1.09
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate ea1fa7556aa2

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	102.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 14 via mutation

hypothesisMutated from an already-invalid parent, this candidate speculatively shortens the arms and tightens the deck gap in hopes of dodging whatever earlier failure mode existed.

methodShortened arm length to 0.97x (from 1.06x), steepened rear sweep to 45.2° (from 41.7°), tightened deck gap to 26.4mm (from 27.7mm), and eased front sweep slightly.

resultInvalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate, the same failure class as candidate 1018824a40a7 this generation. Confirms rear sweep above roughly 44-45° is a recurring bolt-alignment trap unless deck gap is widened to compensate. Worth flagging that sweep ceiling explicitly and testing smaller sweep increments from a known-valid baseline.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.97
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.9°
rear sweep	45.2°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	26.4 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×1.25
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 10ff01288727

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	104.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 14 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the heaviest parent with a mid-pack design bet that a much steeper rear sweep could improve aero efficiency enough to offset the heavier parent's weight.

methodSwept the rear arms back sharply to 52.4° (from 41.7°), increased front sweep to 36.5° (from 34.3°), and shrank plate length slightly.

resultInvalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate, the third invalid design this generation from a large rear-sweep jump. Reinforces that anything pushing rear sweep past roughly 44-45° breaks bolt alignment without a compensating deck-gap or plate-length change. Worth testing sweep increases in small steps to find where the geometry actually tolerates it.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.04
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	36.5°
rear sweep	52.4°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	29.5 mm
battery wedge	14.7°
plate thickness	×1.31
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 09284be32378

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.21 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	81.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 14 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the champion with f1e5b0a6016e aimed to tighten the deck gap for a more compact, lower-drag stance while trimming plate width to save mass.

methodTightened deck gap sharply to 23.6mm (from 30.0mm), narrowed the plate to 0.96x scale, increased rear sweep to 40.5°, and pushed battery wedge to its max 15.0°.

resultInvalid — the plate web came out too thin (1.21mm against a 1.90mm stock minimum) once the deck-gap tightening and plate-width narrowing compounded on the structural margin. Shows deck-gap and plate-width reductions interact on web thickness in a way the genome doesn't currently police. Worth testing deck-gap tightening alone, holding plate width and thickness fixed, to see how far it can go before hitting the same wall.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	40.5°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.96
deck gap	23.6 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate c71d16c7cb04

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — cold_headwind: battery pack cannot deliver demanded power
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	185.3 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 14 via immigrant

hypothesisAn immigrant injects fresh diversity outside the current champion lineage, betting that a heavier-duty arm profile and a different plate material might open an unexplored region of the design space.

methodBuilt from scratch with much thicker 7.3mm arms, a wider and waisted arm profile, a large oversized plate, minimal battery wedge tilt (2.7°), and swapped the material from carbon-fiber plate to a PET-carbon-fiber composite.

resultInvalid — in the cold-headwind scenario the battery pack cannot deliver the demanded power, meaning the extra structural mass from the thick arms and oversized plate pushed power draw beyond what the pack supplies in cold conditions. Useful boundary marker: heavy, high-drag configurations go power-limited before they're even aero-limited. Worth retesting a lighter version of this immigrant (thinner arms, smaller plate) to see if the PET-CF material has any merit once mass is back in range.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.01
arm width	×1.06
arm waist	×1.22
arm thickness	7.3 mm
front sweep	41.7°
rear sweep	38.7°
plate length	×1.27
plate width	×1.24
deck gap	32.3 mm
battery wedge	2.7°
plate thickness	×1.50
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 5b277a1f090e

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.328 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.014 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.627 Wh/km
frame mass	95.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 13 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents were near the front of the pack; the bet was that a thicker, stiffer plate paired with more front sweep and a flatter battery angle could shave induced drag further, building on whatever made each parent competitive.

methodThickened the plate from ×0.80 to ×0.96, swept the front arms forward from 36.5° to 39.6°, flattened the battery wedge from 6.0° to 4.0°, and trimmed plate length slightly.

result8.328 — beats both parents (8.363 and 8.417), improving modestly across every scenario, though it falls just short of another cross this generation (f1e5b0a6016e, 8.291) and remains behind the 8.191 champion. The added plate stiffness and flatter battery angle likely reduced induced drag fairly uniformly. Worth testing: push plate thickness further still while holding sweep and wedge fixed, to isolate how much of the gain is the plate alone.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.497	148.6	29.0°
cold_headwind	6.541	277.8	55.3°
crosswind	5.070	215.4	44.7°
gusty_light	4.598	195.3	54.0°
hot_thin	3.750	159.3	33.1°
storm	6.627	281.4	63.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	39.6°
rear sweep	41.0°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	31.9 mm
battery wedge	4.0°
plate thickness	×0.96
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 30f271aea977✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.363 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.031 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.664 Wh/km
frame mass	90.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 12 via designer

hypothesisSame designer batch as 3ae2747c7d03, testing whether a slightly longer arm paired with heavier sweep and a bigger plate (and a lower battery wedge) could match or beat the thin-plate bet through sweep-driven drag reduction instead.

methodKept the same thin arm and narrow width/waist as its sibling, but lengthened the arm to 1.00x, opened both sweeps further (36.5 degrees front / 43 degrees rear), grew the plate slightly (about 1.05-1.06x), thickened it a touch (0.80x), and dropped battery wedge to 6 degrees.

result8.363 -- actually better than the pre-generation best-so-far of 8.417, but its sibling 3ae2747c7d03 (8.191) was evaluated first this generation and already claimed the win, so this does not register as a new best-so-far. The extra sweep and slightly larger/thicker plate cost more than they gained relative to the thinner sibling; worth testing next: the same sweep and wedge changes paired with the sibling's thinner 0.75x plate to see if it can beat 8.191.

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	29.1°
cold_headwind	6.607	280.6	55.9°
crosswind	5.087	216.1	45.0°
gusty_light	4.610	195.9	54.7°
hot_thin	3.735	158.7	33.3°
storm	6.664	282.9	64.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	36.5°
rear sweep	43.0°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	6.0°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 7419216b71e9

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.367 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.033 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.668 Wh/km
frame mass	89.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 13 via crossover

hypothesisA self-cross of the generation's strongest performer, testing whether small independent perturbations — less rear sweep, a wider deck gap, a thinner plate — could each nudge the same design further downhill without a second parent's traits diluting it.

methodReduced rear sweep from 43.0° to 40.5°, widened the deck gap slightly (32.0mm→33.7mm), and thinned the plate marginally (×0.80→×0.78).

result8.367 — essentially a wash versus the 8.363 parent (within rounding noise) and still short of the 8.191 champion. None of the three small tweaks individually moved the needle, suggesting this design sits near a local optimum for these particular genes. Worth testing: self-cross the same parent but vary battery wedge or front sweep instead, since those showed larger effects 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	3.477	147.7	29.1°
cold_headwind	6.621	281.2	56.0°
crosswind	5.092	216.3	45.1°
gusty_light	4.610	195.8	54.8°
hot_thin	3.730	158.5	33.3°
storm	6.668	283.0	64.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	36.5°
rear sweep	40.5°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.06
deck gap	33.7 mm
battery wedge	6.0°
plate thickness	×0.78
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b142234d3907

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.426 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.066 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.720 Wh/km
frame mass	91.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 13 via crossover

hypothesisA conservative cross between two similarly-performing parents, testing whether a slightly tighter deck gap and marginally wider plate could edge out both without tripping a clearance violation.

methodTrimmed deck gap from 32.0mm to 30.5mm, widened the plate slightly (×1.06→×1.08), lengthened arms marginally, and nudged battery wedge up slightly.

result8.426 — essentially flat versus the parents, slightly worse than 30f271aea977 (8.363) and about level with b3e74ae3f068 (8.417). The small deck-gap and plate-width tweaks canceled out rather than compounding, unlike the flatter-wedge crosses this generation. Worth testing: rerun this same parent pairing but with a flatter battery wedge (à la f1e5b0a6016e) instead of a steeper one.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.489	148.2	29.2°
cold_headwind	6.684	283.9	56.2°
crosswind	5.121	217.5	45.1°
gusty_light	4.637	197.0	55.1°
hot_thin	3.743	159.0	33.4°
storm	6.720	285.3	64.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.02
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	36.5°
rear sweep	42.9°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.08
deck gap	30.5 mm
battery wedge	6.5°
plate thickness	×0.80
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d420a8640abd

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.518 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.131 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.774 Wh/km
frame mass	105.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 13 via mutation

hypothesisParent 2a2f347652ad (8.51) was mid-pack; the bet was that a stiffer, slightly shorter plate with a touch more width could cut flex losses without adding meaningful drag.

methodThickened the main plate from ×1.25 to ×1.32, shortened it slightly (×1.03→×0.99), and nudged plate width up marginally (×1.00→×1.02).

result8.518 — essentially flat versus the 8.51 parent (within noise) and well short of the 8.191 best-so-far, with storm (6.77) and cold_headwind (6.66) still the dominant losses. The extra plate mass from thickening likely offset any stiffness gain from shortening it. Worth testing: keep the shorter plate length but leave thickness at ×1.25 to see if length alone was 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	3.587	152.4	29.0°
cold_headwind	6.660	282.9	54.9°
crosswind	5.215	221.5	44.8°
gusty_light	4.712	200.2	53.6°
hot_thin	3.842	163.2	33.2°
storm	6.774	287.6	63.3°

gene	value
arm length	×1.04
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	34.3°
rear sweep	41.7°
plate length	×0.99
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	29.3 mm
battery wedge	14.8°
plate thickness	×1.32
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate e9ace3fd26f5

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.824 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.291 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.067 Wh/km
frame mass	102.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 13 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the reigning champion (3ae2747c7d03, 8.191) with a weaker design (b2e01b967b18, 8.668) to see if the champion's genes could pull the weaker lineage toward something competitive.

methodWidened the arm waist further from ×0.79 to ×0.91, with only marginal changes to plate thickness and rear sweep otherwise close to the champion's values.

result8.824 — worse than both parents and well off the 8.191 champion it was bred from. The wider arm waist appears to be the dominant drag/mass penalty inherited from the weaker parent, overwhelming the champion's otherwise strong baseline. Worth testing: cross the champion with a strong parent instead of a weak one, or explicitly hold arm waist at the champion's narrower value.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.590	152.5	29.4°
cold_headwind	7.067	299.9	56.8°
crosswind	5.364	227.9	46.3°
gusty_light	4.828	205.1	56.5°
hot_thin	3.846	163.4	33.8°
storm	7.050	299.1	65.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.04
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.91
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	34.2°
rear sweep	41.7°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.5 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.96
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate cce085805c37

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.911 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.350 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.122 Wh/km
frame mass	110.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 13 via crossover

hypothesisWith b2e01b967b18 lagging at 8.668, the bet was that pulling its steep 15° battery wedge toward 3958e3b91ccb's flatter angle while thickening the arms for stiffness could close the gap.

methodFlattened battery wedge from 15.0° to 9.8°, thickened arms from 4.0mm to 4.7mm, trimmed front sweep slightly, and lengthened arms marginally.

result8.911 — worse than both parents, the weakest valid design this generation. The thicker, longer arms likely added more mass/drag than the flatter wedge could recover, hitting hardest in storm (7.12) and cold_headwind (7.12). Worth testing: keep the wedge correction but revert arm thickness to 4.0mm to check whether the wedge change alone was beneficial.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.642	154.7	29.3°
cold_headwind	7.122	302.3	56.6°
crosswind	5.427	230.6	46.1°
gusty_light	4.884	207.5	56.3°
hot_thin	3.902	165.8	33.7°
storm	7.122	302.1	65.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.06
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.80
arm thickness	4.7 mm
front sweep	33.2°
rear sweep	41.9°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.5 mm
battery wedge	9.8°
plate thickness	×0.93
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 241dc3920690

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.425 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.667 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.515 Wh/km
frame mass	154.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 13 via crossover

hypothesisWith one parent (7691268668e6) already weak at 9.228, this was a long-shot attempt to see if blending in the stronger parent's rear-sweep and deck-gap traits could rescue the lineage.

methodWidened the arm waist from ×0.67 to ×0.84, increased rear sweep from 40.5° to 42.8° and deck gap from 28.9mm to 30.3mm, with front sweep essentially unchanged.

result9.425 — worse than both parents, the worst design of the generation, with storm (7.52) and cold_headwind (7.43) the biggest losses. The wider arm waist appears to have added drag and mass across the board, so the weak parent's traits dominated rather than being rescued. Worth testing: retire this 9.228-class lineage, or if reused, pair it only with the current 8.191 champion instead of a mid-pack parent.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.905	165.9	29.2°
cold_headwind	7.429	315.2	55.4°
crosswind	5.787	245.9	46.1°
gusty_light	5.182	220.1	55.6°
hot_thin	4.186	177.8	33.5°
storm	7.515	318.7	64.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.96
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.84
arm thickness	4.9 mm
front sweep	32.6°
rear sweep	42.8°
plate length	×1.21
plate width	×1.20
deck gap	30.3 mm
battery wedge	13.2°
plate thickness	×1.60
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 4eb31fc025e7

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	95.7 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 13 via crossover

hypothesisParent 3958e3b91ccb (8.485) suggested arms could be leaner still; this cross bets that lengthening and widening the arm slightly while thinning its wall and easing back plate thickness would trade a bit of stiffness for lower mass and drag.

methodGrew arm length and width modestly, thinned the arm wall from 5.8mm to 5.2mm, and trimmed plate thickness back down from ×1.22 to ×1.18.

resultInvalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate. Shifting the arm root geometry (longer, wider, thinner) while also easing plate thickness moved the bolt pattern off the plate edge, a reminder that arm-root and plate dimensions are tightly coupled. Worth testing: repeat the arm-wall thinning alone, holding plate thickness at the parent's ×1.22, to see if that isolates the bolt-alignment break.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.88
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	5.2 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	50.4°
plate length	×1.18
plate width	×1.20
deck gap	29.9 mm
battery wedge	13.0°
plate thickness	×1.18
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 20216f045fc3

click to open the 3D model

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	176.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 13 via immigrant

hypothesisA random immigrant probing a much stouter arm family — thicker, longer, wider — against the population's converged slender-arm designs, testing whether more structural margin could pay off aerodynamically or in scenario robustness.

methodScaled arm length up to ×1.21, width to ×1.30, waist to ×1.13, and thickness to 6.0mm, paired with a wide 39.3mm deck gap and a nearly flat 2.6° battery wedge.

resultInvalid — plate web too thin (1.44mm vs 1.90mm stock). The oversized arms weren't matched with enough plate thickness to keep the web above the structural floor. Worth testing: reintroduce similar arm dimensions but force plate thickness well above stock (×1.3+) to satisfy the web constraint before judging the aerodynamic bet.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.21
arm width	×1.30
arm waist	×1.13
arm thickness	6.0 mm
front sweep	47.2°
rear sweep	43.5°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×0.97
deck gap	39.3 mm
battery wedge	2.6°
plate thickness	×0.97
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 5dae7ad20a35

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	101.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 13 via crossover

hypothesisBuilding on 3958e3b91ccb's solid 8.485 baseline, this cross bet that shortening the arms while opening the deck gap could cut arm drag without sacrificing propeller clearance.

methodShortened arm length from ×0.91 to ×0.76 and widened the deck gap from 29.5mm to 32.4mm, with plate length and thickness nudged up slightly.

resultInvalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance). Cutting arm length that aggressively without compensating in sweep pulled the rotor tips too close together despite the wider deck gap. Worth testing: keep the wider deck gap but shorten arms only modestly (e.g. ×0.85), or increase front/rear sweep alongside the shorter arms to preserve tip spacing.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.76
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	35.4°
rear sweep	37.4°
plate length	×1.22
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	32.4 mm
battery wedge	14.7°
plate thickness	×1.21
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate ad4f7260c83c

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	101.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 13 via crossover

hypothesisTesting whether tightening the deck gap and shortening the plate from b3e74ae3f068's 8.417 baseline could shave frontal area and mass, accepting a marginally steeper battery wedge in exchange.

methodShrank deck gap from 28.7mm to 26.7mm and plate length from ×1.15 to ×1.11, while increasing front sweep and battery wedge slightly.

resultInvalid — rotor too close to deck/battery. Tightening the deck gap this far crowded the rotor against the deck/battery volume, echoing a recurring failure mode this generation. Worth testing: keep the shorter plate length but leave deck gap unchanged, to isolate whether the plate-length change alone carries a benefit.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.91
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	36.4°
rear sweep	38.9°
plate length	×1.11
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	26.7 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×1.19
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 8da88c8a1c92

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	105.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 13 via crossover

hypothesisAnother blend of the champion (3ae2747c7d03, 8.191) with a mid-pack parent, betting that a slightly wider plate and tighter deck gap could trim mass and drag while staying close to the champion's proven layout.

methodWidened the plate slightly (×1.00→×1.03), tightened the deck gap from 29.3mm to 27.7mm, lengthened arms marginally, and nudged battery wedge up slightly.

resultInvalid — rotor too close to deck/battery, the third such failure this generation. It suggests a deck gap below roughly 28mm is now a reliable failure boundary for this arm-length/wedge combination. Worth testing: repeat this cross but hold deck gap at or above 29mm to see if the plate-width and arm-length changes deliver a gain on their own.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.06
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	34.5°
rear sweep	41.7°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.03
deck gap	27.7 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×1.25
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 133bbbef5c22

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	99.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 13 via mutation

hypothesisAttempting to rescue the weaker b2e01b967b18 lineage (8.668) with a more dramatic mutation — pushing rear sweep much further back and reshaping the plate footprint — to see if a bigger jump could unlock a better configuration than incremental tweaks had.

methodIncreased rear sweep substantially from 41.9° to 46.8°, widened the plate (×1.00→×1.05) while shortening it (×1.02→×0.97); deck gap left essentially unchanged.

resultInvalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate, the same failure mode as 4eb31fc025e7. The large rear-sweep jump combined with the shorter/wider plate shifted the arm-root bolt pattern off the plate edge. Worth testing: cap rear-sweep mutations to smaller steps (e.g. ±3°) whenever plate length is also being changed, since the two together seem to be what breaks bolt alignment.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.04
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.79
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	34.2°
rear sweep	46.8°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	30.7 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.95
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b3e74ae3f068new best when evaluated

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.417 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.075 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.686 Wh/km
frame mass	102.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 6 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents had plateaued around 8.85 Wh/km; this cross bets that trimming arm cross-section while adding plate stiffness margin could cut mass and drag simultaneously rather than trading one for the other.

methodArm width narrowed by roughly 15% and arm length shortened by about 11% relative to the baseline parent, plate width trimmed slightly, and plate thickness increased further for structural margin.

resultFitness came in at 8.417, a dramatic drop from both parents (8.846 and 8.849) and a clean break past the prior best-so-far of 8.804 -- a NEW WINNER. The slimmer, shorter arms likely cut mass and drag without breaching structural minimums because the extra plate thickness absorbed the stiffness loss. Worth testing next: push arm width/length trimming even further while watching for the thin-web failures seen in sibling candidates 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	3.561	151.3	28.9°
cold_headwind	6.571	279.1	55.1°
crosswind	5.158	219.1	44.8°
gusty_light	4.658	197.9	53.8°
hot_thin	3.814	162.0	33.0°
storm	6.686	283.8	63.6°

gene	value
arm length	×0.91
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	35.3°
rear sweep	38.9°
plate length	×1.15
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	28.7 mm
battery wedge	14.7°
plate thickness	×1.19
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 3958e3b91ccb✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.485 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.103 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.764 Wh/km
frame mass	89.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 12 via designer

hypothesisThird designer probe in the same batch, testing a longer arm (1.15x) combined with the thin-plate, narrow-arm recipe, betting extra arm length would improve prop efficiency enough to offset any added mass.

methodLengthened the arm to 1.15x while keeping the thin 4.0mm arm, narrow width/waist, and the same 0.75x plate thickness as 3ae2747c7d03, with a tighter deck gap (29mm) and reduced front sweep (32 degrees).

result8.485 -- slightly worse than both the pre-generation best-so-far (8.417) and its two thin-plate siblings, despite sharing their core recipe. The extra arm length appears to add drag/mass faster than it improves efficiency, suggesting the 0.95-1.00x range the winning siblings used is closer to the sweet spot than 1.15x; worth testing next: dial arm length back down toward 1.00x while keeping this candidate's tighter deck gap and reduced front sweep.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.506	149.0	29.3°
cold_headwind	6.735	286.0	56.3°
crosswind	5.190	220.5	45.5°
gusty_light	4.670	198.4	55.3°
hot_thin	3.753	159.4	33.6°
storm	6.764	287.1	64.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	41.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	29.0 mm
battery wedge	14.5°
plate thickness	×0.75
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 2a2f347652ad

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.510 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.125 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.770 Wh/km
frame mass	103.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 10 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the strong 8.657 performer with an invalid partner, this bet trims arm width and plate length slightly to see if a leaner frame improves on the good parent without inheriting the invalid parent's flaws.

methodNarrowed the arm width, shortened the plate length slightly, and nudged rear sweep up marginally versus the fed91bcec3a8 parent.

resultScored 8.51 Wh/km, an improvement over the 8.657 parent and the best result of this generation, though it doesn't beat the 8.417 best-so-far. The narrower arms likely cut mass without crossing a structural limit, unlike several siblings this generation. Worth testing next: push arm width narrower still, in smaller steps, to find where the structural 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	3.575	151.9	29.0°
cold_headwind	6.669	283.2	55.1°
crosswind	5.203	221.0	44.9°
gusty_light	4.702	199.8	53.8°
hot_thin	3.829	162.7	33.2°
storm	6.770	287.4	63.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.04
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	34.3°
rear sweep	41.7°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	29.3 mm
battery wedge	14.8°
plate thickness	×1.25
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b2e01b967b18

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.668 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.209 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.918 Wh/km
frame mass	99.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 12 via pivot

hypothesisPaired a strong parent (8.51) with a poor one (10.802); the bet was that easing the arm waist toward the weaker parent's value while lightening the plate would recover some of the crosswind/storm robustness the stronger parent had.

methodReduced plate thickness by 5%, widened the arm waist significantly toward the weaker parent's value, and nudged deck gap and plate length up slightly.

result8.668 -- splits the difference between parents, beating the weak one badly but falling short of the strong parent (8.51) and the 8.417 best-so-far, so the waist-widening bet cost more than the plate-thinning saved. Worth testing next: keep the plate thinning but hold the arm waist at the strong parent's tighter value.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.568	151.6	29.3°
cold_headwind	6.901	293.0	56.5°
crosswind	5.285	224.5	45.7°
gusty_light	4.761	202.3	55.7°
hot_thin	3.821	162.3	33.6°
storm	6.918	293.6	65.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.04
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.79
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	34.2°
rear sweep	41.9°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.6 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×0.95
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 3d80e9d0036f

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.790 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.287 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.008 Wh/km
frame mass	120.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 12 via pivot

hypothesisParent 579452c0e6ee scored a strong 8.791 with no obvious plateau signal yet; this self-cross bet that leveling the battery wedge to zero and easing front sweep would shave a touch more drag off an already-solid design.

methodIncreased plate thickness by about a quarter, eased front sweep by roughly 5 degrees, trimmed plate length slightly, and leveled the battery wedge to 0 degrees.

resultCame in at 8.79, essentially flat versus the parent (8.791) and still well short of the 8.417 best-so-far, though it's one of the tightest self-cross replications this generation. It shows this design is near a local optimum along this axis; worth testing next: a plate-thickness cut instead of an increase, since heavier candidates keep underperforming lighter ones 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	3.645	154.9	29.1°
cold_headwind	6.950	295.1	56.0°
crosswind	5.363	227.8	45.4°
gusty_light	4.836	205.5	55.2°
hot_thin	3.917	166.4	33.3°
storm	7.008	297.4	64.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.05
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.2 mm
front sweep	35.1°
rear sweep	46.0°
plate length	×1.15
plate width	×1.15
deck gap	36.0 mm
battery wedge	0.0°
plate thickness	×1.24
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 738ae3748e54

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.011 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.382 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.259 Wh/km
frame mass	105.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 12 via pivot

hypothesisBoth parents clustered near 9.1-9.2 Wh/km; the bet was that trimming arm thickness and nudging sweep/plate values slightly would find a small marginal gain without adding structural risk.

methodThinned the arm from 4.5mm to 4.0mm, widened plate width slightly, and made a fraction-of-a-degree sweep and thickness tweak.

result9.011, a modest improvement over both parents but nowhere near the 8.417 best-so-far -- confirms this region of the design space is fairly flat and small tweaks only yield small gains. Worth testing next: a bigger arm-length or waist change, since this candidate's minor edits suggest remaining headroom here needs a structural bet, not fine-tuning.

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	29.5°
cold_headwind	7.259	307.9	56.8°
crosswind	5.456	231.8	47.0°
gusty_light	4.902	208.2	57.4°
hot_thin	3.870	164.4	34.0°
storm	7.194	305.0	66.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.29
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.4°
rear sweep	38.2°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	34.3 mm
battery wedge	6.1°
plate thickness	×0.99
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 9e7b9ad77ed3

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.029 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.438 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.181 Wh/km
frame mass	133.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 12 via crossover

hypothesisSelf-cross of the 8.939 parent; the bet was that a bit more deck gap and plate thickness would improve heat/vibration margins without moving off an already-competitive design.

methodIncreased deck gap from 30.0mm to 34.7mm and plate thickness by about 5%.

result9.029, slightly worse than the parent (8.939) and well off the 8.417 best-so-far -- the added deck gap and plate mass cost more than any margin they bought, with every scenario ticking up slightly. Worth testing next: shrink deck gap back down while keeping other genes fixed to confirm gap size, not plate thickness, 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	3.778	160.5	29.2°
cold_headwind	7.059	299.7	55.5°
crosswind	5.578	237.0	45.6°
gusty_light	4.988	211.9	54.5°
hot_thin	4.044	171.8	33.4°
storm	7.181	304.7	64.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.9 mm
front sweep	33.1°
rear sweep	40.0°
plate length	×1.19
plate width	×1.21
deck gap	34.7 mm
battery wedge	12.9°
plate thickness	×1.27
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 7691268668e6

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.228 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.558 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.340 Wh/km
frame mass	150.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 12 via pivot

hypothesisBoth parents were mid-pack (8.9-9.6 Wh/km) with fairly heavy arms and plates; the bet was that thickening the plate further while narrowing the arm waist would stiffen the frame enough to cut drag-inducing flex in gusty and storm conditions.

methodIncreased plate thickness by about a third, narrowed the arm waist and arm width slightly, and pulled the deck gap in by about a millimeter.

resultLanded at 9.228, worse than both parents and far off the 8.417 best-so-far -- the extra plate mass outweighs any stiffness gain, most visible in storm (7.34) and cold_headwind (7.21). Worth testing next: keep the narrower waist but roll plate thickness back toward the lighter parent's value to isolate whether waist or plate mass is driving 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	3.880	164.8	29.0°
cold_headwind	7.208	306.0	55.4°
crosswind	5.675	241.1	45.4°
gusty_light	5.092	216.3	54.6°
hot_thin	4.153	176.4	33.2°
storm	7.340	311.4	64.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.96
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.67
arm thickness	4.9 mm
front sweep	32.9°
rear sweep	40.5°
plate length	×1.21
plate width	×1.20
deck gap	28.9 mm
battery wedge	13.3°
plate thickness	×1.60
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate c0ac904c9c01

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	115.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 12 via pivot

hypothesisParents were both under 10 Wh/km but with mismatched plate/arm proportions; the bet was that tightening plate width and thinning the arm while shifting material fully to stock cf_plate would trim mass without losing stiffness.

methodNarrowed plate width, thinned the arm from 4.6mm to 4.0mm, widened arm width slightly, and moved material fully to cf_plate.

resultInvalid -- arm tongue bolts miss the main plate, meaning the combined plate-width reduction and arm-geometry shift moved the bolt bosses outside the plate footprint. This is the first sign this generation that plate width and arm attachment geometry are tightly coupled; worth testing next: the same thickness/material change but holding plate width closer to one parent's value to keep bolt alignment intact.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.86
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	35.8°
rear sweep	47.5°
plate length	×1.21
plate width	×1.09
deck gap	30.2 mm
battery wedge	11.4°
plate thickness	×1.23
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 718483f5e2a1

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	153.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 12 via pivot

hypothesisParents sat around 9.2-9.5 Wh/km; the bet was that flattening the battery wedge and pulling front sweep back would cut frontal drag in headwind-type scenarios while a thicker arm added stiffness.

methodCut battery wedge angle roughly in half, reduced front sweep by 3 degrees, narrowed plate width, and thickened the arm.

resultInvalid -- arm tongue bolts miss the main plate again, likely from the plate-width narrowing combined with the sweep change moving the arm root off the bolt pattern. Two failures this generation share this exact fault, suggesting the current plate-width floor is too aggressive whenever sweep or arm thickness also change; worth testing next: a smaller plate-width delta in isolation to map where the bolt-miss threshold actually is.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.94
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	7.2 mm
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	47.7°
plate length	×1.18
plate width	×1.08
deck gap	29.9 mm
battery wedge	7.0°
plate thickness	×1.22
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 36cd8bc37eaa

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	103.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 12 via pivot

hypothesisPaired the reigning best-so-far parent (8.417) with a weak one (9.621); the bet was that sweeping the front arms out further and shortening arm length would improve packaging and drag while inheriting the champion's core proportions.

methodIncreased front sweep by about 10 degrees, shortened arm length by 18%, and lengthened the plate to compensate.

resultInvalid -- rotor disks overlap (tip clearance). Shortening the arms while sweeping them out further closed the gap between adjacent rotor disks below the safety margin, showing arm length and front sweep are tightly coupled once arms get this aggressive. Worth testing next: keep the increased front sweep but hold arm length near the parent's 0.91x value to preserve clearance.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.75
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	44.8°
rear sweep	38.9°
plate length	×1.30
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	28.8 mm
battery wedge	14.1°
plate thickness	×1.19
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 6b01abd7d0ec

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.03 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	122.3 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 12 via crossover

hypothesisCrossed an unevaluated candidate with the solid 8.791 parent; the bet was that shifting material toward the lighter pet_cf blend and widening the arm would let the frame handle a bigger rear sweep and deck gap without adding real mass.

methodIncreased rear sweep, widened the arm significantly, raised battery wedge, and shifted material roughly halfway from cf_plate toward pet_cf.

resultInvalid -- plate web too thin (1.03mm versus 1.90mm stock), meaning the material shift toward pet_cf silently reduced effective structural thickness even though the plate-thickness multiplier itself was raised to x1.55. This shows the material blend fraction interacts with effective wall thickness in a way the raw multiplier doesn't capture; worth testing next: the same geometry but material held at 100% cf_plate to isolate whether the failure is material-driven or geometry-driven.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.82
arm width	×1.30
arm waist	×0.79
arm thickness	6.2 mm
front sweep	47.4°
rear sweep	50.6°
plate length	×0.86
plate width	×0.95
deck gap	39.1 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×1.55
material	pet_cf

parents

candidate 594f14153118

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	100.3 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 12 via mutation

hypothesisMutation off the 9.458 parent; the bet was that shortening and thinning the arm while pushing rear sweep further out and shifting material toward pa12_cf would cut mass and improve packaging.

methodShortened arm length by about 13%, thinned the arm from 6.7mm to 5.8mm, increased rear sweep by about 4 degrees, and shifted material toward pa12_cf.

resultInvalid -- arm tongue bolts miss the main plate, the third such failure this generation, reinforcing that arm-length/thickness cuts combined with sweep changes are the most common way to walk off the bolt-pattern cliff. Worth testing next: apply the material shift and rear-sweep change alone, without touching arm length, to see if the mass/packaging gain survives on its own.

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	5.8 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	51.0°
plate length	×1.18
plate width	×1.21
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	12.9°
plate thickness	×1.22
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 4e1fec7f811d

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	103.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 12 via crossover

hypothesisSelf-cross of the reigning best-so-far (8.417); the bet was that lengthening the plate and narrowing arm width would free up a bit more efficiency from an already-winning layout.

methodIncreased plate length by about 5%, narrowed arm width from x0.83 to x0.75, eased rear sweep slightly, and nudged deck gap up.

resultInvalid -- rotor disks overlap (tip clearance), meaning the arm-width narrowing closed rotor spacing below the safety margin even off a proven-safe parent. This is a caution that the champion design already sits close to the clearance boundary; worth testing next: the plate-length and rear-sweep changes alone, without narrowing arm width, to keep clearance margin intact.

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	4.0 mm
front sweep	35.3°
rear sweep	37.8°
plate length	×1.21
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	29.5 mm
battery wedge	14.7°
plate thickness	×1.19
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 579452c0e6ee✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.791 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.283 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.016 Wh/km
frame mass	112.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 11 via designer

hypothesisThis designer entry explored a hand-reasoned alternative to the evolved lineage: a near-flat battery mount and generous deck gap, betting that a cleaner, more conservative geometry could compete with the algorithm's more aggressive angles.

methodFresh design with moderate arm taper, larger front/rear sweep than the champion, a nearly flat (1.5 degree) battery wedge, a generous deck gap, and standard plate thickness.

resultValid at 8.791 — a competent frame, but it trails the champion (8.417) by a clear margin, not a new winner. The near-flat wedge and larger deck gap likely add conservative mass/drag margin that the tighter evolved champion doesn't carry. Worth testing: keep this design's sweep and taper concept but pair it with the champion's tighter deck gap and 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	3.609	153.3	29.2°
cold_headwind	6.996	297.0	56.5°
crosswind	5.368	228.0	45.9°
gusty_light	4.829	205.2	56.0°
hot_thin	3.878	164.8	33.5°
storm	7.016	297.7	65.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.05
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.2 mm
front sweep	40.0°
rear sweep	46.0°
plate length	×1.22
plate width	×1.15
deck gap	36.0 mm
battery wedge	1.5°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 5c71e4beda4d

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.939 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.384 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.110 Wh/km
frame mass	129.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 11 via pivot

hypothesisParent 5cf3eda75663 (8.948) still carried a heavily swept-back rear arm; the bet was that dialing that sweep back toward a more balanced stance would trade some rear-arm leverage for better stability/drag balance in wind-heavy scenarios.

methodPulled the rear sweep back by about 7 degrees, nudged arm thickness and battery wedge up slightly, and increased plate thickness by roughly 1%.

resultValid at 8.939, a small improvement over both parents (8.948 and 9.621) but still well short of the reigning best of 8.417 — not a new winner. The rear-sweep pullback helped a little across every scenario, with cold_headwind and storm remaining the biggest drags on the total. Worth testing: continue easing rear sweep further while trimming plate mass to see if the cold/storm penalty keeps shrinking.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.743	159.0	29.1°
cold_headwind	6.996	297.1	55.6°
crosswind	5.511	234.1	45.4°
gusty_light	4.937	209.7	54.6°
hot_thin	4.009	170.3	33.3°
storm	7.110	301.7	64.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.79
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.9 mm
front sweep	33.1°
rear sweep	40.0°
plate length	×1.19
plate width	×1.21
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	12.9°
plate thickness	×1.21
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 0b03cdca8b73

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.969 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.401 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.137 Wh/km
frame mass	130.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 11 via pivot

hypothesisThis pivot tested whether a wider, thicker plate paired with a bit more front sweep could break the 8.9-ish plateau that the 5cf3eda75663 lineage had settled into.

methodWidened the plate about 4%, increased plate thickness roughly 7%, added a couple degrees of front sweep, and trimmed arm thickness slightly.

resultValid at 8.969, essentially flat against parent 5cf3eda75663 (8.948) and far off the champion at 8.417 — not a new winner. The extra plate mass from the thickness/width increase likely cancelled out any aerodynamic gain from the added front sweep. Worth testing: try the front-sweep increase alone, without the plate thickness/width additions, to isolate its real effect.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.758	159.6	29.1°
cold_headwind	7.023	298.2	55.6°
crosswind	5.511	234.1	45.4°
gusty_light	4.951	210.3	54.6°
hot_thin	4.023	170.9	33.3°
storm	7.137	302.9	64.4°

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.6 mm
front sweep	35.3°
rear sweep	46.7°
plate length	×1.19
plate width	×1.25
deck gap	30.2 mm
battery wedge	12.2°
plate thickness	×1.29
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 76c399d0f0de

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.994 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.408 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.173 Wh/km
frame mass	120.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 11 via crossover

hypothesisThis crossover bet on blending the champion (8.417) with a strong secondary design (8.865), hoping to combine the champion's efficiency with the other's structural margin.

methodIncreased arm thickness slightly, widened the plate about 2.5%, trimmed deck gap a hair, and increased battery wedge angle slightly.

resultValid at 8.994, but worse than both parents (8.865 and 8.417) — not a new winner. The added arm thickness and plate width likely added mass without a matching efficiency return, so the champion's advantage didn't carry through the cross. Worth testing: repeat this cross but hold the champion's arm thickness and plate width fixed, mixing only the sweep-angle genes.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.705	157.4	29.3°
cold_headwind	7.136	302.8	56.4°
crosswind	5.519	234.5	46.5°
gusty_light	4.947	210.1	56.3°
hot_thin	3.967	168.5	33.6°
storm	7.173	304.3	65.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.5 mm
front sweep	42.2°
rear sweep	49.8°
plate length	×1.28
plate width	×1.25
deck gap	35.3 mm
battery wedge	8.4°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 7921979831e3✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.081 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.435 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.291 Wh/km
frame mass	113.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 11 via designer

hypothesisThis designer entry tested whether longer arms — more prop clearance and leverage — could trade added mass for an aerodynamic or thrust efficiency win over the shorter, tapered-waist approach the champion uses.

methodFresh design with arms about 28% longer than stock, a tapered arm profile, modest front/rear sweep, standard plate dimensions and thickness, and a low battery wedge.

resultValid at 9.081, clearly behind the champion (8.417) and behind most other candidates this generation — the extra arm length appears to add mass and bending moment without a matching efficiency payoff. Lesson: within this design family, longer arms alone don't pay off; the champion's shorter, more tapered arm still wins. Worth testing: a mid-length arm between stock and this +28% extreme, combined with the champion's 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	3.658	155.4	29.5°
cold_headwind	7.291	309.3	56.6°
crosswind	5.532	235.0	46.9°
gusty_light	4.955	210.5	57.1°
hot_thin	3.921	166.6	34.0°
storm	7.253	307.5	65.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.28
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.60
arm thickness	4.5 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	38.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	34.0 mm
battery wedge	6.0°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 3a06a2f6cb98

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.458 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.696 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.524 Wh/km
frame mass	152.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 11 via pivot

hypothesisTesting whether raw arm stiffness pays for itself: with 5cf3eda75663 sitting at 8.948, the bet was that a much thicker, more rigid arm would cut deflection losses enough to offset its added mass.

methodIncreased arm thickness by nearly 40% (4.8mm to 6.7mm), trimmed plate length slightly, and nudged battery wedge and rear sweep marginally.

resultBackfired — 9.458 is worse than both parents (8.948 and 9.143). The much heavier arm apparently cost more in mass/drag across every scenario than it saved in structural margin. Lesson: arm thickness for this family seems to have a sweet spot near 5mm, and overshooting it is a net loss. Worth testing: revert arm thickness closer to 5mm and check whether the plate-length/wedge/rear-sweep tweaks have any standalone value.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.957	168.1	29.3°
cold_headwind	7.387	313.5	55.4°
crosswind	5.863	249.1	45.8°
gusty_light	5.225	222.0	55.0°
hot_thin	4.222	179.4	33.6°
storm	7.524	319.1	64.2°

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	6.7 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	46.9°
plate length	×1.18
plate width	×1.21
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	12.9°
plate thickness	×1.22
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 4f68665f4197

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.41 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	125.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 11 via pivot

hypothesisThe prior pivot lineage was mediocre (one parent invalid, the other a middling 9.73), so this bet aimed to fix structural weakness by beefing up the arm root and plate while trimming front sweep for a touch more efficiency.

methodNearly eliminated the arm-waist taper (much thicker at the root), bumped plate thickness about 5% higher, and traded a few degrees of front sweep for a bit more rear sweep.

resultInvalid: the plate web still measured too thin (1.41mm vs the 1.90mm stock requirement) even after the thickness bump, so the extra material didn't reach the critical web region. That suggests the width/length scaling on this plate is eating the margin faster than the thickness multiplier can restore it. Worth testing: push plate thickness further (well past 1.4x) or pull back plate width/length before retrying this arm-waist idea.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.03
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×1.01
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	31.6°
rear sweep	40.6°
plate length	×1.16
plate width	×0.97
deck gap	28.4 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×1.36
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate dafb9c7d75ca

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	104.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 11 via pivot

hypothesisWith the 9.62 parent lagging, the bet was that a wider plate for stiffness combined with a slightly flatter battery wedge and tighter deck gap could shave weight and drag simultaneously.

methodWidened the plate about 10%, reduced the battery wedge angle slightly, trimmed arm width marginally, and shaved a fraction of a millimeter off the deck gap.

resultInvalid: the rotor ended up too close to the deck/battery, so the deck-gap trim (even though tiny) combined with the wedge/width changes crossed the clearance line. This design region seems to have very little slack left in deck gap. Worth testing: hold deck gap fixed (or increase it slightly) whenever widening the plate or adjusting wedge.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.02
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	35.1°
rear sweep	38.9°
plate length	×1.15
plate width	×1.08
deck gap	27.7 mm
battery wedge	14.0°
plate thickness	×1.02
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate ef8f3afaf68d

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	80.3 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 11 via pivot

hypothesisWith one parent performing poorly at 10.8, this pivot bet on a lighter composite material paired with shorter, less-tapered arms to cut mass rather than iterating on the existing carbon-fiber-plate shape.

methodShortened the arms by about 22%, thickened the arm waist (removed most of the taper), switched material from carbon-fiber plate to a PA12-carbon-fiber blend, and thinned the plate about 6%.

resultInvalid: arm tip deflection exceeded limits for the PA12-CF material, showing it's simply too compliant at this arm length/thickness for the load. Lesson: swapping to a softer composite needs compensating geometry (shorter or thicker arms), not just a length trim. Worth testing: retry the PA12-CF swap with meaningfully thicker or notably shorter arms than this attempt.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.75
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	41.6°
rear sweep	49.5°
plate length	×1.28
plate width	×1.22
deck gap	35.9 mm
battery wedge	8.0°
plate thickness	×0.94
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate aec598cc9d01

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	98.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 11 via pivot

hypothesisStarting from the reigning champion at 8.417, the bet was that shaving plate thickness and slightly shifting material/geometry could squeeze extra efficiency out of an already-winning lineage.

methodCut plate thickness about 18%, shifted the material composition slightly, thickened the arms marginally, and reduced both battery wedge and deck gap a touch.

resultInvalid: the rotor ended up too close to the deck/battery, likely because trimming deck gap and wedge together pushed past the champion's already-tight clearance margin. Lesson: the champion's deck gap/wedge combination has essentially no slack left to cut. Worth testing: keep deck gap and wedge fixed and pursue the plate-thickness/material savings in isolation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.91
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.2 mm
front sweep	35.3°
rear sweep	38.9°
plate length	×1.15
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	28.7 mm
battery wedge	14.2°
plate thickness	×0.98
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate ef48cc6c147b

click to open the 3D model

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	122.3 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 11 via immigrant

hypothesisAn immigrant injects fresh, unrelated genetic material to probe an unexplored corner of the design space — here, large sweep angles and a tall deck gap in an untested material — as a hedge against the population converging too early.

methodEntirely new random design: shorter but wider arms, front and rear sweep both near 46-48 degrees, a tall ~39mm deck gap, a much thicker plate (1.55x), built in a PET-carbon-fiber composite.

resultInvalid: the plate web came out far too thin (1.12mm vs the 1.90mm requirement) despite the high thickness multiplier, meaning the plate's width/length scaling ate the margin the thickness increase was supposed to provide. Lesson: random immigrants in this space frequently fail the plate-web check regardless of raw thickness. Worth testing: bias immigrant generation to check thickness relative to plate width/length before wasting an evaluation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.82
arm width	×1.23
arm waist	×0.79
arm thickness	6.3 mm
front sweep	47.9°
rear sweep	45.7°
plate length	×0.87
plate width	×0.96
deck gap	39.1 mm
battery wedge	13.6°
plate thickness	×1.55
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 3605f5d8d47e

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.07 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	117.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 11 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents of this crossover were themselves non-viable designs; the bet was that combining two unproven genomes, with an emphasis on much thicker arms, might land the offspring in a valid, sturdier region by chance.

methodIncreased arm thickness substantially, trimmed arm width, and made small opposing adjustments to front and rear sweep.

resultInvalid, and badly so — the plate web came out at essentially 0.07mm against a 1.90mm requirement, meaning the cross combined a thin plate-thickness allele from one parent with an aggressive plate-scaling allele from the other, compounding rather than averaging their flaws. Lesson: breeding two already-invalid parents can amplify weaknesses instead of fixing them. Worth testing: skip crossovers between two null-fitness parents, or add a plate-thickness floor check before spending an evaluation on them.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.92
arm width	×1.01
arm waist	×0.70
arm thickness	5.7 mm
front sweep	39.5°
rear sweep	40.1°
plate length	×1.14
plate width	×0.89
deck gap	35.6 mm
battery wedge	7.6°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 123e7af302e7

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	102.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 11 via crossover

hypothesisThis crossover made only tiny tweaks to the champion (8.417) blended with the runner-up (8.646), betting that a small deck-gap trim could squeeze out a marginal efficiency gain from an already-strong shape.

methodSlightly narrowed arm width, marginally shortened the arms, trimmed deck gap by about 0.3mm, and added a fraction of a degree of front sweep.

resultInvalid: even this tiny deck-gap reduction was enough to push the rotor into the deck/battery clearance limit. Lesson: the champion is sitting right at the boundary of this constraint, leaving essentially zero room to trim deck gap further. Worth testing: treat deck gap as fixed for this lineage and look to sweep angles or plate thickness for further gains instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.90
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	35.4°
rear sweep	38.9°
plate length	×1.15
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	28.4 mm
battery wedge	14.7°
plate thickness	×1.19
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate f2ccb4284ad3✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (petg)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	123.9 g
material	petg
born	generation 11 via designer

hypothesisThis designer bet tested whether a cheaper, widely-available material (PETG) with extra-thick arms could hold up structurally in place of the carbon-fiber composites the evolved lineage relies on.

methodFresh design with thick (6.5mm) arms, moderate sweep and deck gap, plate thickness 30% above stock, built in plain PETG rather than a carbon-fiber material.

resultInvalid: arm tip deflection exceeded limits even at 6.5mm, showing PETG's stiffness can't handle this arm span regardless of thickness. Lesson: PETG isn't structurally viable for this frame's arm geometry — carbon-fiber reinforcement seems necessary. Worth testing: if PETG is worth revisiting for cost, pair it with much shorter or thicker arms than tried here.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×1.00
arm waist	×0.85
arm thickness	6.5 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	8.0°
plate thickness	×1.30
material	petg

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate c022b6d61878

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.646 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.208 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.877 Wh/km
frame mass	108.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 9 via crossover

hypothesisA self-cross of the 8.762 design bet that narrowing the arm width and slightly tightening the deck gap could recover some of that design's underperformance relative to the champion.

methodDeck gap trimmed about 3 mm, arm width cut significantly (about 10%), arm waist reduced slightly, and arm thickness increased marginally to 4.2 mm.

resultValid and improved to 8.646 Wh/km, a solid gain over the 8.762 parent lineage, though still shy of the 8.417 best-so-far. The narrower arm width likely cut drag across all scenarios fairly evenly, with storm (6.88) and cold_headwind (6.78) still the largest contributors. Worth testing an even narrower arm width on this same base, watching for the plate-web-thinning failure mode seen elsewhere once width drops much further.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.629	154.2	29.1°
cold_headwind	6.776	287.8	55.6°
crosswind	5.305	225.4	45.2°
gusty_light	4.778	203.0	54.4°
hot_thin	3.881	164.9	33.3°
storm	6.877	291.9	64.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.04
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.2 mm
front sweep	36.8°
rear sweep	38.8°
plate length	×1.08
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.7 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×1.24
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 0437c36d112e✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.865 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.331 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.068 Wh/km
frame mass	113.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 10 via designer

hypothesisA Claude-authored design testing whether an aggressively swept, wide-plate layout with a very shallow battery wedge and generous deck gap could outperform the evolved lineage on its own terms.

methodA hand-specified genome with narrow, thin-waisted arms, strong front and rear sweep, a large plate, and a very shallow battery wedge, built independently of any evolved parent.

resultScored 8.865, a respectable valid result but well short of the 8.417 best-so-far and behind several evolved candidates. The heavy sweep combination seems to cost more in cold-headwind and storm penalties than it saves elsewhere. Worth testing next: graft this design's deck-gap/plate-size choices onto the evolved lineage's tighter 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	3.659	155.5	29.3°
cold_headwind	7.036	298.6	56.5°
crosswind	5.429	230.6	46.3°
gusty_light	4.875	207.1	56.1°
hot_thin	3.916	166.4	33.6°
storm	7.068	299.9	65.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	42.0°
rear sweep	50.0°
plate length	×1.28
plate width	×1.22
deck gap	36.0 mm
battery wedge	8.0°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 5cf3eda75663

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.948 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.386 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.123 Wh/km
frame mass	126.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 10 via pivot

hypothesisBlending a solid performer (8.675) with a weaker one (9.202), this pivot tests whether a modest thickness bump plus a small material-blend shift combines the better parent's arms with sturdier structure.

methodThickened the arms slightly, shifted the material blend a touch away from pure carbon, and nudged battery wedge up and rear sweep down slightly.

resultCame in at 8.948: better than the weaker parent but short of the better parent's 8.675 and well off the 8.417 best-so-far. The extra thickness added weight without matching payoff. Worth testing next: retry the small sweep/wedge tweak on the 8.675 parent directly, skipping the thickness and material changes.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.743	159.0	29.2°
cold_headwind	7.025	298.3	55.8°
crosswind	5.490	233.2	45.5°
gusty_light	4.934	209.6	54.8°
hot_thin	4.003	170.0	33.4°
storm	7.123	302.3	64.5°

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.8 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	47.4°
plate length	×1.20
plate width	×1.20
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	12.6°
plate thickness	×1.20
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b46801ba6f97✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.143 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.481 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.325 Wh/km
frame mass	121.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 10 via designer

hypothesisA second Claude-authored design, betting that much longer arms with a near-zero battery wedge could reduce prop-wash interference and cut drag.

methodA hand-specified genome with notably longer arms, moderate thickness, and a nearly flat (2°) battery wedge, independent of the evolved lineage.

resultScored 9.143, valid but the weakest of the two evaluated designer entries and off the pace of the 8.417 evolved best. The near-flat wedge likely increased frontal drag in headwind and storm rather than helping. Worth testing next: try intermediate battery-wedge angles (5-8°) on this same long-arm frame to see if wedge, not arm length, was the limiting choice.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.695	157.0	29.4°
cold_headwind	7.325	310.7	56.4°
crosswind	5.590	237.5	46.8°
gusty_light	5.000	212.4	57.0°
hot_thin	3.967	168.5	33.9°
storm	7.306	309.8	65.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.30
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	5.0 mm
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	2.0°
plate thickness	×1.05
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate ecc91d01ceae

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.580 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.763 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.634 Wh/km
frame mass	149.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 10 via pivot

hypothesisWith one parent solid at 8.646 and the other weak at 9.733, this pivot bets that substantially beefing up arm thickness buys enough stiffness to offset the added mass, alongside a sweep and deck-gap tweak.

methodNearly doubled arm thickness, swept the rear arms back further, thickened the plate slightly, and tightened the deck gap a touch.

resultLanded at 9.58 Wh/km, worse than the stronger parent (8.646) and no threat to the 8.417 best-so-far. The thick arms likely added mass without a compensating win, showing up worst in storm and cold-headwind. Worth testing next: try the sweep/deck-gap tweak alone without the thickness jump 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	3.983	169.2	29.6°
cold_headwind	7.514	318.8	55.4°
crosswind	5.927	251.8	46.0°
gusty_light	5.285	224.5	55.1°
hot_thin	4.235	179.9	33.9°
storm	7.634	323.6	64.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.04
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	7.0 mm
front sweep	36.9°
rear sweep	41.9°
plate length	×1.08
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	31.9 mm
battery wedge	14.8°
plate thickness	×1.28
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 966c44cb5013

click to open the 3D model

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	113.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 10 via pivot

hypothesisOne parent was invalid and the other (3b919be0b361) was a mediocre flier at 9.733, so this pivot bets that shrinking the arm cross-section and waist while nudging arm length and battery wedge up could recover a lighter, valid design.

methodSlightly lengthened the arms, narrowed both arm width and the waist taper further, and tilted the battery wedge up a touch versus the parent blend.

resultFailed the print-safety check: the plate web thinned to 1.24 mm against the 1.90 mm stock minimum, so it never got evaluated in flight. The waist/width shrink combined with the inherited plate thickness pushed structural margin below the line. Worth testing next: pair any further waist/width narrowing with an explicit plate-thickness floor check before committing to a pivot.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.03
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.62
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	35.3°
rear sweep	39.0°
plate length	×1.17
plate width	×0.96
deck gap	28.4 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×1.29
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a2e97ae3cf50

click to open the 3D model

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	116.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 10 via pivot

hypothesisBoth parents were weak (one invalid, one at 10.802), so this pivot swings hard on sweep angles and plate thickness, betting a much more raked frame could unlock a new efficiency regime worth the structural risk.

methodSwept both front and rear arms back dramatically, widened the arms, and thickened the plate substantially.

resultInvalid: the plate web collapsed to 1.02 mm, near half the 1.90 mm stock minimum, so the aggressive combination never got aerodynamically evaluated. Extreme sweep angles appear to demand more plate thickness than the gene allotted for. Worth testing next: cap plate-thickness pivots below a computed safe ratio whenever sweep exceeds roughly 45°.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.04
arm width	×1.07
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	46.0°
rear sweep	51.2°
plate length	×1.10
plate width	×0.95
deck gap	28.7 mm
battery wedge	14.1°
plate thickness	×1.40
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 7681399e6835

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.07 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	92.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 10 via pivot

hypothesisStarting from an already-invalid parent and a weak flier (9.733), this pivot bets that a shallower battery wedge and thinner plate could shed weight and improve efficiency.

methodCut plate thickness substantially, flattened the battery wedge dramatically, widened the arms, and opened the deck gap.

resultInvalid, and badly so: the plate web dropped to just 0.07 mm versus the 1.90 mm stock requirement, an order-of-magnitude overshoot past the failure threshold. This confirms the plate-thickness gene needs a hard floor, not just a soft mutation step. Worth testing next: clamp plate-thickness pivots to stay above roughly half the stock value.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.92
arm width	×1.06
arm waist	×0.70
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	39.0°
rear sweep	40.7°
plate length	×1.15
plate width	×0.89
deck gap	35.4 mm
battery wedge	7.4°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 49d849b5884d

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	103.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 10 via pivot

hypothesisWith a decent parent at 8.715, this pivot bets that shortening the arms while sweeping the rear back further could tighten the frame's footprint and cut mass.

methodShortened arm length, swept the rear arms back noticeably, lengthened the plate slightly, and steepened the battery wedge slightly.

resultInvalid: shortening the arms combined with the rear-sweep increase moved the arm tongue bolts off the main plate's bolt pattern entirely, a purely geometric failure rather than an aero one. Worth testing next: when shortening arm length, cap rear sweep so tongue bolts stay within plate bounds.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.89
arm width	×0.91
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	34.5°
rear sweep	46.5°
plate length	×1.04
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×1.25
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate ae26f7f5304a

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	136.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 10 via pivot

hypothesisSharing the same solid 8.646 parent as a sibling pivot, this one bets that a moderate thickness increase paired with a tighter deck gap could stiffen the frame while keeping it compact.

methodIncreased arm thickness moderately, pulled the deck gap in noticeably, widened the waist taper, and lengthened the plate slightly.

resultInvalid: tightening the deck gap while widening the waist pushed the rotor disc too close to the deck/battery stack, a clearance violation that killed the design before the stiffening bet could be tested aerodynamically. Worth testing next: retry the thickness increase alone, leaving deck gap at the parent's value.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.04
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.68
arm thickness	5.9 mm
front sweep	36.8°
rear sweep	38.7°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.4 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×1.25
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate ceea3704fbeb

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.10 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	102.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 10 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing an invalid design with a solid 8.657 flier, this bet hopes the good parent's traits carry through even as deck gap and waist shift toward the invalid parent's values.

methodOpened the deck gap, widened the waist taper, lengthened the plate, and swept the rear arms back slightly.

resultInvalid: the plate web thinned to 0.10 mm, failing outright. The invalid parent's traits appear to have dominated the unsafe combination rather than being filtered out by the crossover. Worth testing next: bias crossover away from an invalid parent's genes whenever the valid parent's plate thickness is already near its limit.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.92
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.68
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	38.8°
rear sweep	44.0°
plate length	×1.20
plate width	×0.90
deck gap	34.6 mm
battery wedge	14.2°
plate thickness	×1.11
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 53189d146762

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	181.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 10 via immigrant

hypothesisA fresh random immigrant meant to inject unrelated genetic diversity into a population that may be converging on a narrow lineage.

methodA wholly new random genome, most notably a large rear sweep, a very shallow battery wedge, and a thick plate, unrelated to any current lineage.

resultInvalid: the aggressive rear sweep pushed the arm tongue bolts off the main plate, the same geometric failure seen in the 49d849b5884d pivot from an unrelated lineage. Two independent designs hitting the same fault suggests the safe rear-sweep ceiling is lower than currently sampled. Worth testing next: tighten the rear-sweep range for mutation and immigrants alike so tongue-bolt geometry stays valid.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.98
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×1.13
arm thickness	6.0 mm
front sweep	42.6°
rear sweep	60.2°
plate length	×1.25
plate width	×1.22
deck gap	26.5 mm
battery wedge	11.2°
plate thickness	×1.50
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 1e548f9924d7

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	100.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 10 via mutation

hypothesisMutating directly off the reigning best-so-far design, this bet tests whether trimming plate thickness and lengthening the arms slightly could shave more weight off an already-excellent frame.

methodReduced plate thickness noticeably, lengthened the arms slightly, and pulled the deck gap in slightly, with arm width essentially unchanged.

resultInvalid: the tighter deck gap combined with the longer arms brought the rotor disc too close to the deck/battery stack. A cautionary result — the champion sits close enough to its own clearance limit that even small deck-gap mutations can tip it over. Worth testing next: mutate deck gap and arm length in opposite, compensating directions rather than together.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.02
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	35.3°
rear sweep	38.9°
plate length	×1.15
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	27.9 mm
battery wedge	14.7°
plate thickness	×1.03
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 5c5784b985d8✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (petg)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	105.9 g
material	petg
born	generation 10 via designer

hypothesisA third Claude-authored design testing whether switching to PETG instead of carbon-fiber plate could simplify manufacturing while keeping performance competitive.

methodA hand-specified genome close to the other designer entries geometrically, but built in PETG rather than carbon-fiber plate.

resultInvalid: PETG's lower stiffness let the arm tip deflect past the allowed limit under load, a material failure rather than a geometric one. This rules out PETG at this thickness/geometry combination outright. Worth testing next: if PETG is worth revisiting, pair it with a thickness increase large enough to compensate for its lower modulus.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.65
arm thickness	5.5 mm
front sweep	34.0°
rear sweep	39.0°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	10.0°
plate thickness	×1.35
material	petg

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate fed91bcec3a8

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.657 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.211 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.891 Wh/km
frame mass	109.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 9 via mutation

hypothesisParent 77add95242e3 (8.715) was solid but not exceptional, so this mutation probed whether trimming arm width and tightening the deck gap slightly could shave drag without breaking structural limits.

methodArm width narrowed a few percent, deck gap tightened by about 0.7 mm, plate width left essentially unchanged, and front sweep eased back less than half a degree.

resultValid and improved to 8.657 Wh/km, a clear gain over its 8.715 parent, but still short of the 8.417 best-so-far. Cold_headwind and storm remained the dominant loss scenarios, suggesting the small width/gap trims helped calm-air efficiency more than they helped high-drag conditions. Worth testing a larger arm-width cut paired with a stiffer plate to see if storm/cold losses can be pulled down without re-triggering thin-web failures.

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	153.5	29.1°
cold_headwind	6.813	289.3	56.0°
crosswind	5.304	225.3	45.3°
gusty_light	4.776	202.9	54.9°
hot_thin	3.871	164.4	33.3°
storm	6.891	292.5	64.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.04
arm width	×0.87
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	34.4°
rear sweep	39.9°
plate length	×1.09
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	29.3 mm
battery wedge	14.8°
plate thickness	×1.25
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 2e2584925751✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.675 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.228 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.894 Wh/km
frame mass	116.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 9 via designer

hypothesisA Claude-designed candidate built from scratch to test whether a narrow-arm, big-plate, steep-rear-sweep combination could beat the population's incremental mutations by attacking the problem from a fresh geometric angle.

methodArms set to 0.95x length and a narrow 0.78x width, plates enlarged to 1.20x in both length and width, rear sweep pushed to an aggressive 48° against a modest 33° front sweep, and plate thickness set to 1.20x.

resultValid at 8.675 Wh/km — respectable and better than several evolved crossovers, but still behind the 8.417 best-so-far. The big plates likely added stability margin but also mass/drag, keeping storm (6.89) and cold_headwind (6.79) elevated. Worth testing this same narrow-arm/steep-rear-sweep concept with the plates scaled back toward 1.0x to see if the aero bet works without the extra plate bulk.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.657	155.4	29.0°
cold_headwind	6.791	288.4	55.7°
crosswind	5.324	226.2	45.2°
gusty_light	4.791	203.5	54.6°
hot_thin	3.912	166.2	33.2°
storm	6.894	292.6	64.3°

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	48.0°
plate length	×1.20
plate width	×1.20
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	12.0°
plate thickness	×1.20
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 77add95242e3

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.715 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.244 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.942 Wh/km
frame mass	110.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 6 via crossover

hypothesisCrossed from the reigning best-so-far parent (8.804) with an invalid sibling, betting that narrowing arm width -- the same lever that would define this generation's winner -- while opening sweep angles slightly could trim mass without breaking structure.

methodArm width narrowed about 10%, front and rear sweep both increased a couple of degrees, and plate length stretched slightly.

resultFitness came in at 8.715, a solid improvement over the 8.804 parent, echoing the arm-narrowing trend behind this generation's champion, though it falls short of the 8.417 leader. This reinforces arm-width reduction as a robust performance lever. Next: combine this degree of arm narrowing with the more aggressive arm-length shortening used by the 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	3.622	153.9	29.2°
cold_headwind	6.878	292.0	56.2°
crosswind	5.339	226.8	45.5°
gusty_light	4.803	204.0	55.2°
hot_thin	3.881	164.9	33.4°
storm	6.942	294.6	64.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.04
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	34.8°
rear sweep	39.9°
plate length	×1.09
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	14.8°
plate thickness	×1.25
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 2e045ca5141c✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.805 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.293 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.024 Wh/km
frame mass	108.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 9 via designer

hypothesisA second Claude-designed candidate tested the opposite bet from its sibling: longer arms and a more conservative, near-symmetric sweep profile, aiming for stability through arm geometry rather than plate size.

methodArm length extended to 1.15x while width stayed moderate at 0.82x, front and rear sweep kept close together at 33°/37°, plate length raised to 1.10x with plate width left at baseline, and plate thickness set to 1.15x.

resultValid but the weakest of the two designer entries at 8.805 Wh/km, behind both the 8.417 best-so-far and its sibling design. The longer arms appear to have added drag (cold_headwind and storm both above 7.0) without a stability payoff large enough to offset it. Worth testing a shorter arm length closer to 1.0x while keeping this candidate's balanced front/rear sweep, to isolate whether the sweep symmetry idea has merit 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	3.623	153.9	29.3°
cold_headwind	7.005	297.4	56.6°
crosswind	5.389	228.9	46.2°
gusty_light	4.837	205.5	56.1°
hot_thin	3.879	164.8	33.6°
storm	7.024	298.0	65.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×1.10
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	13.0°
plate thickness	×1.15
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 2bee1d176dd9

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.017 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.411 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.213 Wh/km
frame mass	115.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 9 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the 8.741 performer with an unscored sibling bet that a much thicker arm waist could add stiffness worth trading for a looser deck gap and heavier plate.

methodArm waist widened substantially (about 24% thicker), plate thickness raised to 1.24x, arm length extended about 2%, front sweep eased back slightly, and deck gap loosened to 33.1 mm.

resultValid but disappointing at 9.017 Wh/km, worse than both parents and well off the 8.417 best-so-far. The bulkier arm waist and looser deck gap likely added drag and mass without a compensating aerodynamic benefit, especially visible in the elevated cold_headwind and storm numbers (7.21 each). This suggests arm waist thickening beyond about 0.6x stops paying for itself — worth reverting waist toward the parents' 0.55–0.58 range while keeping the 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	3.673	156.1	29.3°
cold_headwind	7.211	306.0	56.5°
crosswind	5.490	233.2	46.4°
gusty_light	4.938	209.8	56.4°
hot_thin	3.941	167.4	33.8°
storm	7.213	305.9	65.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.03
arm width	×0.93
arm waist	×0.72
arm thickness	4.1 mm
front sweep	32.8°
rear sweep	40.4°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	33.1 mm
battery wedge	10.8°
plate thickness	×1.24
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 1cd06adb23cc

click to open the 3D model

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	98.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 9 via crossover

hypothesisOne parent was the untested 961967e8331f, the other a solid 8.741 performer; the bet was that combining a sharper front sweep with a softer rear sweep and a slightly leaner arm might carve out extra efficiency.

methodFront sweep increased about 5°, rear sweep pulled back about 5°, arm width trimmed fractionally, and the material blend nudged toward its lighter end.

resultInvalid: the main plate web thinned to 0.87 mm against a 1.90 mm stock requirement. The combined sweep and material shift left too little material where the arms meet the plate. Worth testing a version that keeps the sweep swap but locks plate thickness at a safer margin above the 1.90 mm floor.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.91
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	39.6°
rear sweep	34.1°
plate length	×1.15
plate width	×0.94
deck gap	29.0 mm
battery wedge	14.5°
plate thickness	×1.12
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 5c2e2bcc966e

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.35 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	103.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 9 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing an untested sibling (605c83a9fc2d) with the 8.741 performer bet that shrinking the plate width while lengthening and thickening the plate could offset each other structurally while improving aero.

methodPlate width cut about 10%, arm length shortened about 6%, plate length increased about 4%, and plate thickness raised to 1.28x.

resultInvalid: the main plate web collapsed to just 0.35 mm versus the 1.90 mm requirement, the thinnest failure of this generation. Shrinking plate width while increasing length apparently starves the web geometry regardless of the thickness multiplier. Worth testing plate width and length changes in isolation to map exactly which axis drives the web thinning.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.94
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	30.7°
rear sweep	38.9°
plate length	×1.10
plate width	×0.91
deck gap	31.5 mm
battery wedge	13.1°
plate thickness	×1.28
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate ce6b039bcd2d

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	127.0 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 9 via immigrant

hypothesisA pure random immigrant, injected to keep genetic diversity alive and probe an unexplored corner of the design space with a heavier, differently-sweep arm and an alternate material.

methodArms lengthened and widened substantially, arm thickness roughly doubled to 5.8 mm, rear sweep pushed to a steep 62°, plates thickened by 60%, and the frame switched to a nylon-carbon-fiber (pa12_cf) material instead of the usual carbon plate.

resultInvalid: the arm tongue bolts missed the main plate entirely. The extreme rear sweep combined with the longer, thicker arms shifted the bolt pattern clean off the plate footprint. This confirms sweep angles above roughly 50° need matching plate geometry changes to keep bolt alignment intact — worth testing a moderate immigrant with rear sweep capped near 45°.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.11
arm width	×1.18
arm waist	×0.76
arm thickness	5.8 mm
front sweep	31.5°
rear sweep	61.9°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.19
deck gap	27.3 mm
battery wedge	3.2°
plate thickness	×1.60
material	pa12_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 259b68ef35c0

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	101.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 9 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the reigning best-so-far frame (b3e74ae3f068, 8.417) with a weaker 8.762 design bet that tightening the deck gap could shrink frontal area and improve efficiency further.

methodDeck gap cut by about 3.5 mm, arm length shortened slightly, arm width increased a touch, and plate thickness raised modestly.

resultInvalid: rotor disks overlapped due to lost tip clearance. Pulling the deck gap in on the champion's already-tight frame pushed the rotors into each other's swept area. This is a clean signal that the current champion's deck gap is close to its structural floor — worth testing gap reductions of half this size, or compensating with slightly longer arms to preserve rotor clearance.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.87
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	35.3°
rear sweep	38.9°
plate length	×1.15
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	25.2 mm
battery wedge	14.7°
plate thickness	×1.21
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 400225708bb1

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.38 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	105.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 9 via crossover

hypothesisAlso crossing the 8.417 champion, this candidate bet that adding plate thickness and length while trimming the arms could reinforce the frame enough to tolerate a leaner arm profile.

methodPlate thickness raised to 1.29x, plate length extended about 3%, arm length trimmed about 3%, and arm width narrowed about 2%.

resultInvalid: despite the thicker plate spec, the main plate web still came out at only 1.38 mm against the 1.90 mm requirement. The narrower arm width apparently undercuts the web more than the added plate thickness compensates. Worth testing plate thickness increases without touching arm width, to isolate which change is actually driving the web deficit.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.88
arm width	×0.81
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	35.3°
rear sweep	38.9°
plate length	×1.18
plate width	×0.97
deck gap	28.6 mm
battery wedge	14.5°
plate thickness	×1.29
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b09258c3d412

click to open the 3D model

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	97.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 9 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two still-unscored siblings (961967e8331f and 71f35705f8c7) was an exploratory bet, pairing a bigger front sweep with a bigger rear sweep to see if a more symmetric high-sweep frame could be both light and strong.

methodFront sweep increased about 4.5°, rear sweep increased about 2.5°, plate width trimmed slightly, and arm length nudged up about 1%.

resultInvalid: the plate web thinned to 0.37 mm, one of the worst structural failures this generation. Pushing both sweeps up simultaneously seems to compound the web-thinning effect seen in other crossovers rather than cancel it out. Worth testing sweep changes on only one axis (front or rear, not both) against this same plate geometry.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.92
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	39.2°
rear sweep	41.5°
plate length	×1.15
plate width	×0.91
deck gap	28.7 mm
battery wedge	14.1°
plate thickness	×1.11
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 9e2ce80bc051

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	118.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 9 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing an unscored sibling with the 8.715 performer bet that a wider battery wedge angle combined with a beefier arm waist could improve stability enough to justify a tighter deck gap.

methodRear sweep eased back about 3°, battery wedge increased about 1°, arm waist widened slightly, and front sweep nudged up slightly, all riding on an already-tight 23.1 mm deck gap.

resultInvalid: the rotor ended up too close to the deck/battery stack. The combination of increased battery wedge and the tight deck gap left no room for prop clearance above the battery. This reinforces that battery wedge and deck gap need to be tuned together, not independently — worth testing this wedge change with a deck gap several mm larger.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.04
arm width	×1.01
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.5 mm
front sweep	32.4°
rear sweep	35.5°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	23.1 mm
battery wedge	11.7°
plate thickness	×1.25
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 9fde71d9ee48

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	111.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 9 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two unscored siblings bet that shrinking plate width while growing plate length could free up room elsewhere in the frame, but it inherited an already-aggressive 22.5 mm deck gap from its lineage.

methodPlate width cut about 8%, plate length extended about 6%, arm length shortened about 8%, and arm thickness trimmed slightly to 4.2 mm.

resultInvalid: the deck gap proved too small to fit the FC/ESC stack. Neither parent's deck gap trait was corrected during crossover, so the flaw carried straight through. Worth testing this plate reshaping with deck gap explicitly floored above 25 mm regardless of parent values.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.96
arm width	×1.00
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.2 mm
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	38.8°
plate length	×1.13
plate width	×0.93
deck gap	22.5 mm
battery wedge	11.0°
plate thickness	×1.30
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 5adde3248b21

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.03 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	111.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 9 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the 8.715 and 8.762 performers bet that a slightly thicker arm combined with a narrower plate and reduced battery wedge could trim weight while keeping stiffness.

methodPlate width cut about 6%, rear sweep eased back about 3°, battery wedge reduced about 1°, and arm thickness increased to 4.3 mm.

resultInvalid: the plate web thinned to 1.03 mm against the 1.90 mm requirement. Even with thicker arms, the narrower plate width alone was enough to breach the web constraint, echoing the pattern seen in several other crossovers this generation. Worth testing whether raising plate thickness specifically (not just arm thickness) can offset a plate-width cut of this size.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.04
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
front sweep	34.7°
rear sweep	36.6°
plate length	×1.09
plate width	×0.95
deck gap	29.4 mm
battery wedge	13.7°
plate thickness	×1.25
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 28d9e90c9765

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.741 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.255 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.973 Wh/km
frame mass	108.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 8 via crossover

hypothesisBlends two mid-tier parents (8.834 and 9.595), betting that trimming mass slightly across arm and plate genes nets a genuine efficiency gain.

methodShaved a percent or two off arm length, plate length, plate width, and plate thickness relative to the fitter parent.

resultValid at 8.741 — beats both parents clearly but still trails the 8.417 best-so-far, so no new winner. The consistent small trims across every plate/arm gene suggest mass-shaving is a real lever, just not yet applied to the strongest lineage. Next: apply the same proportional trims directly to champion b3e74ae3f068 rather than to these weaker parents.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.610	153.4	29.2°
cold_headwind	6.929	294.2	56.3°
crosswind	5.336	226.7	45.6°
gusty_light	4.808	204.3	55.5°
hot_thin	3.871	164.5	33.5°
storm	6.973	295.9	65.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.01
arm width	×0.94
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.1 mm
front sweep	33.3°
rear sweep	40.3°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	33.1 mm
battery wedge	10.8°
plate thickness	×1.14
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 2f0af12d1d7a

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.762 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.272 Wh/km
worst scenario	6.980 Wh/km
frame mass	109.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 8 via crossover

hypothesisCrosses an unscored parent with a weak one (f1776ef30fd3, 9.595), testing whether a wider deck gap and maxed battery wedge improve storm/wind handling.

methodIncreased front sweep, opened the deck gap noticeably, pushed battery wedge to its 15° ceiling, and lengthened the plate slightly.

resultValid at 8.762 — a solid improvement over the weak parent but still short of the 8.417 champion, so no new winner. Its per-scenario spread mirrors #28d9e90c9765 closely, hinting the wide-deck-gap/high-wedge combo caps out around this fitness band. Next: graft the max battery-wedge angle directly onto the champion's geometry to see if it helps a leaner frame more.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.649	155.0	29.3°
cold_headwind	6.908	293.3	56.1°
crosswind	5.367	228.0	45.6°
gusty_light	4.830	205.2	55.1°
hot_thin	3.900	165.7	33.5°
storm	6.980	296.2	64.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.04
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	36.8°
rear sweep	38.8°
plate length	×1.08
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	35.8 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×1.24
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 0627ca0757a8

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.895 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.348 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.094 Wh/km
frame mass	117.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 8 via crossover

hypothesisA self-cross of a mid-tier parent (450520fc0d54, 8.949), probing whether small thickness fine-tuning could squeeze out extra efficiency.

methodThinned arm thickness by 0.2 mm and raised the plate-thickness multiplier slightly.

resultValid at 8.895 — a marginal improvement over its 8.949 parent but far from threatening the 8.417 champion, so no new winner. The tiny gain suggests this parent lineage is near a local optimum for thickness tuning alone. Next: apply the same slight arm-thinning to the actual champion instead of this weaker lineage.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.674	156.1	29.3°
cold_headwind	7.032	298.6	56.2°
crosswind	5.456	231.8	45.9°
gusty_light	4.896	208.0	55.4°
hot_thin	3.936	167.2	33.6°
storm	7.094	301.0	65.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.04
arm width	×0.99
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.3 mm
front sweep	35.1°
rear sweep	38.7°
plate length	×1.06
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	32.7 mm
battery wedge	14.8°
plate thickness	×1.28
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 434c93252eb9

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.624 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.735 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.779 Wh/km
frame mass	131.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 8 via crossover

hypothesisCombines a weak scored parent (f1776ef30fd3, 9.595) with an unscored one, betting a sharper front sweep and longer plate could recover some efficiency.

methodIncreased front sweep to nearly 40°, elongated the plate by about 30% over baseline, and eased the plate-thickness multiplier slightly.

resultValid but worse than its own weak parent, landing at 9.624 versus best-so-far 8.417 — not a new winner. Cold-headwind and storm costs (7.78 and 7.67 Wh/km) dominate, suggesting the steep front sweep hurts high-drag scenarios rather than helping them. Next: dial front sweep back toward 35° while keeping the longer plate to isolate which change is hurting.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.804	161.6	29.7°
cold_headwind	7.779	329.0	57.8°
crosswind	5.868	249.3	49.2°
gusty_light	5.210	221.3	59.3°
hot_thin	4.073	173.0	34.3°
storm	7.674	324.6	65.7°

gene	value
arm length	×1.26
arm width	×0.99
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	39.6°
rear sweep	38.5°
plate length	×1.30
plate width	×1.10
deck gap	28.8 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×1.20
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate c861f33805b9

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm overstressed (pla_plus)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	107.7 g
material	pla_plus
born	generation 8 via mutation

hypothesisParent fitness was unrecorded, so this mutation gambles on switching to a lighter/cheaper print material while nudging arm and plate width up to compensate.

methodShifted the material blend toward PLA+, thickened arm width slightly, and widened the plate a touch.

resultInvalid — the arms overstressed under PLA+'s lower strength margin. PLA+ evidently needs more cross-section than this candidate gave it, so the width bump wasn't enough to offset the weaker material. Worth testing PLA+ only alongside a much larger arm-width or waist increase, not a marginal one.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×1.10
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	35.4°
rear sweep	38.7°
plate length	×1.16
plate width	×1.13
deck gap	27.6 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×1.31
material	pla_plus

parents

candidate 01be98e0c2c9

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.38 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	108.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 8 via crossover

hypothesisOne parent (dcb3f64eb3a5, 8.932) was mediocre; the cross bets that a wider deck gap and thicker plate multiplier could unlock better cooling/clearance and efficiency.

methodOpened the deck gap by about a third, raised the plate-thickness multiplier, and nudged front sweep and plate width slightly.

resultInvalid — the main plate's structural web came out far thinner than the 1.90 mm stock minimum despite the higher thickness multiplier. This shows deck gap and plate width interact with the web calc in a way that a simple thickness bump can't fix. Next: increase plate width alongside deck gap, not instead of it, to keep the web thick enough.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.89
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.65
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	36.4°
rear sweep	38.7°
plate length	×1.15
plate width	×0.97
deck gap	37.6 mm
battery wedge	14.7°
plate thickness	×1.26
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 961967e8331f

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.79 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	98.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 8 via crossover

hypothesisA self-cross of the reigning champion, probing whether the frame could be slimmed down for extra efficiency without breaking its structure.

methodNarrowed the plate width, reduced the plate-thickness multiplier, blended in a touch of a different material, and eased the battery wedge slightly.

resultInvalid — the plate web collapsed to well under half the stock minimum thickness. This confirms the champion's plate is already sitting close to the structural floor, so shaving material off it in any direction breaks the constraint. Next: leave plate thickness alone and instead test lighter arms as the slimming lever.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.91
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	34.7°
rear sweep	38.9°
plate length	×1.15
plate width	×0.93
deck gap	28.7 mm
battery wedge	14.2°
plate thickness	×1.12
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate eb2699ee5c1f

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.72 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	112.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 8 via crossover

hypothesisBlends a decent mid-tier parent with the champion hoping to combine the champion's efficiency with the other parent's beefier arms.

methodNarrowed the plate width, thickened both arm width and arm waist, and sharpened the front sweep angle.

resultInvalid — same web-too-thin failure as the self-cross above, reinforcing that narrowing plate width is the recurring killer this generation regardless of arm changes. Next: hold plate width near the champion's value and only vary arm geometry in crosses involving it.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.06
arm width	×1.02
arm waist	×0.61
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.2°
rear sweep	39.9°
plate length	×1.11
plate width	×0.93
deck gap	29.9 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×1.24
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 93b4d9796e15

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	101.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 8 via crossover

hypothesisAnother champion self-cross, testing whether evening out front/rear sweep asymmetry could improve balance and efficiency.

methodPulled rear sweep down toward front sweep, widened the arms slightly, and shrank both plate length and deck gap.

resultInvalid — the arm root tongues now collide on the main plate, a pure geometry failure rather than a strength one. Shrinking plate length while also reducing rear sweep evidently tightens arm-root spacing past the collision limit. Next: if testing symmetric sweep again, keep plate length at or above the champion's value.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.88
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	35.3°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.11
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	27.1 mm
battery wedge	14.7°
plate thickness	×1.19
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 71f35705f8c7

click to open the 3D model

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	101.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 8 via crossover

hypothesisCrosses the champion with a weaker parent (450520fc0d54, 8.949) to see if a much sharper front sweep, inherited from the weaker side, pays off.

methodIncreased front sweep substantially, blended in a bit of alternate material, and shortened the arms slightly.

resultInvalid — plate web too thin again, the third instance of this failure mode this generation. The pattern suggests plate-thickness multipliers in the 1.2 range are marginal whenever front sweep or plate geometry pulls width down elsewhere. Next: pair any front-sweep increase with an explicit plate-thickness floor check before spending eval budget on it.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.84
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	38.8°
rear sweep	38.9°
plate length	×1.15
plate width	×0.97
deck gap	28.8 mm
battery wedge	14.7°
plate thickness	×1.20
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 3f0d7ef4df41

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	118.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 8 via crossover

hypothesisCombines a decent parent with the champion to test whether a much tighter deck gap could shave weight and drag.

methodCut the deck gap by roughly a quarter versus the champion side, with only minor arm and plate width tweaks.

resultInvalid — the rotor now sits too close to the deck/battery, a hard clearance violation. This marks out a floor on deck gap around this battery-wedge angle that can't be pushed further without also lowering wedge or repositioning the battery. Next: try the same tight deck gap paired with a shallower battery wedge to regain clearance.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.04
arm width	×1.00
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.5 mm
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	38.7°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	23.3 mm
battery wedge	10.8°
plate thickness	×1.25
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 58f5ae31da0b

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	152.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 8 via immigrant

hypothesisA random immigrant injected for diversity after several generations circling the same champion lineage, exploring extreme sweep angles and a near-flat battery wedge outside the population's usual range.

methodFresh random genome: thick 6.6 mm arms, aggressive ~46°/51° front/rear sweep, minimal battery wedge, and a tight deck gap.

resultInvalid — the arm tongue bolts miss the main plate entirely, a geometry mismatch from the extreme sweep combination. This suggests immigrant sampling needs tighter sweep bounds so random genomes land in buildable geometry more often. Next: clamp immigrant sweep ranges closer to what successful lineages have used (30-40°).

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.94
arm width	×1.01
arm waist	×0.71
arm thickness	6.6 mm
front sweep	46.4°
rear sweep	50.9°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.17
deck gap	23.2 mm
battery wedge	0.2°
plate thickness	×1.14
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 14d888ada59f

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.81 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	110.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 8 via crossover

hypothesisCrosses two parents of unknown fitness, testing a much thicker arm waist for robustness at the cost of narrower arms.

methodSubstantially thickened the arm waist, narrowed arm width, and tightened the deck gap versus the parents.

resultInvalid — plate web too thin, the fourth such failure this generation. The waist/width trade didn't touch the plate genes directly, so the failure likely inherited from a weak plate-thickness value in one of the unscored parents. Next: screen unscored parents' plate thickness before using them in further crosses.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.04
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.75
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	32.3°
rear sweep	35.5°
plate length	×1.13
plate width	×0.94
deck gap	25.7 mm
battery wedge	12.9°
plate thickness	×1.23
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 605c83a9fc2d

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	108.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 8 via crossover

hypothesisCrosses an unscored parent with a decent one (27652b59f24b, 8.879), testing whether a modestly wider deck gap improves clearance/efficiency.

methodWidened the deck gap slightly, nudged battery wedge up a touch, and trimmed arm width marginally.

resultInvalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate, the same failure mode seen in candidate #93b4d9796e15. Two independent crosses hitting this collision suggests the arm-width/plate-length region around these values is a real geometric danger zone for this generation's population. Next: add a minimum plate-length safeguard whenever arm width is pushed below ~0.85x in crosses.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.04
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	30.9°
rear sweep	38.8°
plate length	×1.06
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	31.6 mm
battery wedge	12.8°
plate thickness	×1.25
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate daf1290aba2d

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.834 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.307 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.052 Wh/km
frame mass	110.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 7 via crossover

hypothesisA self-cross of the 8.804 parent probes small material/sweep jitter around an already-explored point, checking if minor refinement finds a nearby local improvement.

methodMaterial fraction shifted marginally toward the cf_plate end, rear sweep raised slightly to 40.3°, front sweep raised slightly to 33.5°, all other genes unchanged from the parent.

resultFitness 8.834, essentially flat with the 8.804 parent and still well off the 8.417 best-so-far. The tiny sweep increases added a hair of drag/weight in every scenario without any offsetting gain. This area looks fully explored; better to spend budget on larger structural moves than further micro-jitter here.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.625	154.0	29.3°
cold_headwind	7.033	298.5	56.5°
crosswind	5.395	229.2	46.0°
gusty_light	4.852	206.1	56.0°
hot_thin	3.888	165.2	33.6°
storm	7.052	299.2	65.3°

gene	value
arm length	×1.03
arm width	×0.95
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.1 mm
front sweep	33.5°
rear sweep	40.3°
plate length	×1.08
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	33.0 mm
battery wedge	11.0°
plate thickness	×1.15
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 27652b59f24b

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.879 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.338 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.082 Wh/km
frame mass	118.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 7 via crossover

hypothesisBoth gen-6 parents plateaued at 8.804; this cross bets that stiffening the arm root and pulling the battery wedge more upright could shave a bit off the storm/headwind penalty that dominates their score.

methodBattery wedge angle cut from about 14.8° to 10.8°, arm thickness bumped from 4.0 to 4.5 mm, arm waist pinched slightly tighter, plate width left essentially unchanged.

resultLanded at 8.879, worse than both 8.804 parents and nowhere near the 8.417 best-so-far, so no new winner. The extra arm mass from the thicker root likely outweighed any aerodynamic gain from the shallower battery wedge, especially visible in storm (7.08) and cold headwind (7.04). Worth testing the wedge cut alone, without the thickness 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	3.662	155.6	29.2°
cold_headwind	7.037	298.7	56.2°
crosswind	5.435	230.9	45.8°
gusty_light	4.880	207.3	55.5°
hot_thin	3.929	166.9	33.5°
storm	7.082	300.5	65.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.04
arm width	×0.99
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.5 mm
front sweep	31.6°
rear sweep	38.7°
plate length	×1.06
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	10.8°
plate thickness	×1.25
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate dcb3f64eb3a5

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.932 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.366 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.130 Wh/km
frame mass	113.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 7 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing 8.778 and 8.715 parents bets that a wider, thinner plate combined with a steeper battery wedge could shift weight rearward for better wind resistance.

methodPlate width widened from ×1.01 to ×1.09, battery wedge steepened from 12.8° to 14.6°, arm width widened slightly, plate thickness reduced from ×1.24 to ×1.19.

resultFitness 8.932, worse than both parents and the 8.417 best-so-far. The wider plate likely added drag and mass across every scenario (storm hit 7.13, cold headwind 7.12) that the thinner plate scaling didn't offset. A narrower plate with the same steeper wedge angle would isolate whether the wedge change 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	3.663	155.6	29.4°
cold_headwind	7.118	302.1	56.5°
crosswind	5.462	232.0	46.4°
gusty_light	4.902	208.3	56.3°
hot_thin	3.922	166.6	33.7°
storm	7.130	302.5	65.5°

gene	value
arm length	×1.04
arm width	×1.04
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	31.5°
rear sweep	38.7°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.09
deck gap	30.3 mm
battery wedge	14.6°
plate thickness	×1.19
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 450520fc0d54

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.949 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.381 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.136 Wh/km
frame mass	119.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 7 via crossover

hypothesisSame plateaued parent pair; this bet leans on more front sweep and a wider deck gap to improve stability in gusty/crosswind scenarios at the cost of a heavier arm root.

methodFront sweep increased from about 31.5° to 35.1°, deck gap widened from 29.9 to 32.7 mm, arm thickness raised to 4.5 mm, arm waist tightened to ×0.55.

resultFitness came in at 8.949, the worst of this generation's valid candidates and worse than both parents and the 8.417 best-so-far. The combination of extra sweep, wider gap, and thicker arm all add mass/drag simultaneously with no scenario improving enough to compensate. Next time isolate a single change (e.g., sweep only) rather than stacking four 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	3.694	156.9	29.3°
cold_headwind	7.076	300.4	56.2°
crosswind	5.494	233.4	46.0°
gusty_light	4.926	209.3	55.5°
hot_thin	3.957	168.1	33.6°
storm	7.136	302.8	65.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.04
arm width	×0.99
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.5 mm
front sweep	35.1°
rear sweep	38.7°
plate length	×1.06
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	32.7 mm
battery wedge	14.8°
plate thickness	×1.25
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate f1776ef30fd3

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.595 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.726 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.739 Wh/km
frame mass	135.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 7 via crossover

hypothesisSame weak 9.455 parent crossed with the 8.715 performer instead, betting that keeping the carbon-fiber plate material (unlike the sibling candidate) while growing the plate footprint would avoid the deflection trap and still capture some of the weak parent's sweep geometry.

methodPlate length grown from ×1.16 to ×1.25, front sweep raised to 35.4°, plate width widened to ×1.11, arm length held near ×1.26-1.27.

resultFitness 9.595, clearly worse than both parents and the worst valid result of the generation, far from the 8.417 best-so-far. Growing both plate length and width simultaneously added substantial static mass that no scenario could absorb, confirming the 9.455 parent's oversized-plate genes are a dead end even when paired with a stronger co-parent. Better to avoid inheriting plate length/width from that lineage altogether and focus crosses on the 8.4-8.8 parent cluster.

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	29.6°
cold_headwind	7.739	327.4	57.5°
crosswind	5.857	248.8	48.8°
gusty_light	5.204	221.1	58.8°
hot_thin	4.083	173.5	34.2°
storm	7.659	324.0	65.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.26
arm width	×1.00
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	35.4°
rear sweep	38.8°
plate length	×1.25
plate width	×1.11
deck gap	30.7 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×1.31
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 632c421891fa

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	104.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 7 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the reigning best-so-far frame with a solid 8.715 performer aimed to blend the champion's efficient proportions with the other parent's wider arm waist for extra rigidity.

methodArm waist widened from ×0.55 to ×0.65, arm length shortened from ×0.91 to ×0.88, arm width increased slightly, deck gap nudged up marginally.

resultInvalid: rotor disks overlap due to tip clearance -- shortening the arms while simultaneously fattening the waist pulled the rotor tips too close together. This confirms arm length and waist width need to be co-varied carefully; a next test should shorten arms only if waist stays at or below the champion's ×0.55.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.88
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.65
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	35.7°
rear sweep	38.7°
plate length	×1.15
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	29.3 mm
battery wedge	14.7°
plate thickness	×1.19
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b10091c500a6

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	108.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 7 via crossover

hypothesisCombining two solid-but-not-winning parents (8.778 and 8.846) bets that a slimmer arm and slightly reduced front sweep could trim mass without sacrificing stiffness.

methodArm width narrowed sharply from ×0.98 to ×0.83, front sweep eased from 31.5° to 30.9°, battery wedge trimmed marginally, plate length essentially unchanged.

resultInvalid: arm root tongues collide on the main plate -- the narrower arm width shrank the tongue footprint enough that adjacent arm roots now overlap on the plate. This suggests arm width has a hard lower bound tied to tongue spacing; future mutations should keep width above roughly ×0.85 unless plate length also grows to give tongues more room.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.04
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	30.9°
rear sweep	38.8°
plate length	×1.06
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	12.6°
plate thickness	×1.25
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 19ad759161a6

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.94 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	110.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 7 via mutation

hypothesisA mutation off the 8.778 parent tries reshaping the plate footprint -- narrower but longer -- paired with reduced rear sweep, betting on a leaner deck to cut static weight.

methodPlate width reduced from ×1.01 to ×0.94, plate length increased from ×1.06 to ×1.13, rear sweep pulled back from 38.8° to 35.9°, front sweep raised to 33.4°.

resultInvalid: plate web too thin (0.94 mm against a 1.90 mm stock minimum) -- squeezing the plate width past a point collapses the structural web beneath the printable minimum. This shows plate width can't be cut in isolation from thickness; a follow-up should pair any width reduction with a compensating thickness increase.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.04
arm width	×0.98
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.4°
rear sweep	35.9°
plate length	×1.13
plate width	×0.94
deck gap	29.9 mm
battery wedge	12.8°
plate thickness	×1.24
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 935f55ca62ce

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	107.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 7 via crossover

hypothesisBlending the two best gen-6 crossover parents (8.846 and 8.778) aimed at a much slimmer arm profile to cut mass while keeping the aggressive battery wedge that seemed promising.

methodArm width cut sharply from ×0.98 to ×0.78, plate length held near ×1.14, battery wedge nudged up to 15.0°, plate thickness essentially unchanged.

resultInvalid: rotor too close to deck/battery -- the slimmer arm combined with the steep battery wedge shrank prop-to-fuselage clearance below the safety margin. This pairs with candidate 632c421891fa's failure to suggest arm width and battery wedge angle trade off against each other; a follow-up should test the slim arm with the battery wedge held near the parents' 12.8°-14.7° range instead of pushing to 15°.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.02
arm width	×0.78
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.1 mm
front sweep	35.0°
rear sweep	38.9°
plate length	×1.14
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	28.6 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×1.15
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate c093d00fcfca

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	112.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 7 via mutation

hypothesisA mutation of the 8.804 parent makes an aggressive bet: shrink the deck gap dramatically to bring mass closer to the center of gravity, betting the compactness pays off in wind scenarios despite packaging risk.

methodDeck gap slashed from 33.0 mm to 20.5 mm, front sweep raised to 38.1°, arm waist widened from ×0.58 to ×0.70, plate length increased to ×1.13.

resultInvalid: deck gap too small for the FC/ESC stack -- the compactness bet went too far and violated a hard packaging constraint. This confirms deck gap has a firm floor around the mid-20s mm; a next attempt should target a gap closer to 25-27 mm rather than jumping straight to 20.5.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.03
arm width	×0.95
arm waist	×0.70
arm thickness	4.1 mm
front sweep	38.1°
rear sweep	42.4°
plate length	×1.13
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	20.5 mm
battery wedge	11.0°
plate thickness	×1.15
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 09995c7e3c83

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	98.9 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 7 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing a weak 9.455 parent with the solid 8.804 parent bets that swapping to a lighter pa12_cf material could offset the weaker parent's mass penalty while inheriting the stronger parent's proportions.

methodMaterial switched from carbon-fiber plate to pa12_cf, front sweep raised to 35.4°, arm length extended from ×1.27 to ×1.35, deck gap trimmed to 27.6 mm.

resultInvalid: arm tip deflection under the pa12_cf material -- the weaker, more flexible material couldn't handle the longer ×1.35 arm length and failed the stiffness check. This shows material swaps to pa12_cf need shorter arms or thicker cross-sections to stay within deflection limits; worth retrying pa12_cf with arm length capped near ×1.1.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.35
arm width	×0.99
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	35.4°
rear sweep	38.7°
plate length	×1.16
plate width	×1.11
deck gap	27.6 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×1.31
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 5e30bf2e9c54

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	110.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 7 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the 8.804 and 8.715 parents bets that a steeper battery wedge and more rear sweep could improve crosswind handling by shifting the center of mass and yaw authority rearward.

methodBattery wedge steepened from 11.0° to 14.0°, rear sweep swept back further from 39.5° to 44.6°, plate width widened to ×1.09, arm length shortened slightly to ×0.99.

resultInvalid: arm tongue bolts miss the main plate -- the large rear sweep increase shifted the arm tongue's bolt pattern off the plate's mounting holes. This is the same failure family as d8d1adf7d686 below, pointing to a sweep ceiling somewhere around 40-42° before tongue/plate alignment breaks; future rear-sweep mutations should stay under that line unless plate length also grows to match.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.99
arm width	×0.95
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.2°
rear sweep	44.6°
plate length	×1.08
plate width	×1.09
deck gap	33.3 mm
battery wedge	14.0°
plate thickness	×1.15
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 55b9b9275fe5

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.39 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	120.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 7 via crossover

hypothesisCombining the 8.778 and 8.846 parents bets that a much thicker plate could support a very aggressive rear sweep for better rear-wind stability without giving up structural margin.

methodPlate thickness increased sharply from ×1.24 to ×1.57, rear sweep swept back to 45.0°, plate width narrowed slightly to ×0.97, front sweep eased to 30.0°.

resultInvalid: plate web too thin (1.39 mm against the 1.90 mm stock minimum), which is counterintuitive given the overall thickness scale went up. The extreme rear sweep evidently cuts into the web material in a way the thickness multiplier doesn't compensate for, showing sweep and thickness interact non-obviously in the web geometry. A follow-up should test the 45° rear sweep at the parents' original ×1.24 thickness to see if it's the sweep alone that's unsafe, independent of thickness.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.04
arm width	×0.97
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	45.0°
plate length	×1.06
plate width	×0.97
deck gap	29.8 mm
battery wedge	12.7°
plate thickness	×1.57
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d8d1adf7d686

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	112.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 7 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the 8.804 champion-adjacent parent with an unscored sibling (itself invalid last round) bets that pushing rear sweep further out could still find a viable, more wind-stable layout.

methodRear sweep swept back sharply from 38.7° to 46.0°, front sweep raised to 34.1°, arm length extended slightly to ×1.07, battery wedge nudged to 15.0°.

resultInvalid: arm tongue bolts miss the main plate -- the same alignment failure as 5e30bf2e9c54, reinforcing that rear sweep above roughly 44-46° breaks the tongue-to-plate bolt pattern regardless of parent lineage. The lesson is now well-established: rear sweep needs to stay below about 42° unless the crossover also drags plate length/width along with it, so future operators should couple sweep mutations to a plate-length compensation.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.07
arm width	×0.99
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	34.1°
rear sweep	46.0°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	29.8 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×1.24
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b8876ad41202

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.778 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.277 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.001 Wh/km
frame mass	111.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 6 via crossover

hypothesisBred from the reigning best-so-far frame (8.804), which had plateaued; the bet was a small refinement -- easing the battery wedge angle while nudging plate thickness up -- rather than a bold redesign.

methodBattery wedge angle trimmed by about 2 degrees, arm width fractionally narrowed, and plate thickness increased slightly further.

resultFitness landed at 8.778, a modest improvement over the 8.804 parent but far short of this generation's new best of 8.417. Small wedge-angle tuning only buys marginal gains -- the real breakthrough this generation came from arm slimming, not wedge adjustments. Next: try layering this wedge trim onto the arm-slimming direction that produced the 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	3.624	154.0	29.2°
cold_headwind	6.959	295.5	56.3°
crosswind	5.367	228.0	45.7°
gusty_light	4.826	205.0	55.5°
hot_thin	3.886	165.1	33.5°
storm	7.001	297.1	65.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.04
arm width	×0.98
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	31.5°
rear sweep	38.8°
plate length	×1.06
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	29.9 mm
battery wedge	12.8°
plate thickness	×1.24
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 4b2439e8c799

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.791 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.285 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.011 Wh/km
frame mass	111.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 6 via crossover

hypothesisTwo mid-pack parents (8.846 and 8.915) bet on conservative fine-tuning -- easing front sweep and trimming plate length slightly -- rather than a bold structural change.

methodFront sweep reduced about 2.5 degrees, plate length trimmed back, battery wedge nudged down fractionally, and material blend left essentially unchanged.

resultFitness landed at 8.791, a modest improvement over both parents (8.846 and 8.915) but nowhere near the 8.417 new best. Small conservative tweaks to sweep and plate length only buy incremental gains -- this generation's big win came from bolder arm-slimming moves. Next: apply this front-sweep trim on top of the champion's slim-arm base 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	3.627	154.1	29.2°
cold_headwind	6.978	296.2	56.4°
crosswind	5.376	228.4	45.8°
gusty_light	4.833	205.3	55.7°
hot_thin	3.888	165.2	33.5°
storm	7.011	297.5	65.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.02
arm width	×0.98
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.2 mm
front sweep	32.7°
rear sweep	38.8°
plate length	×1.10
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	28.7 mm
battery wedge	14.5°
plate thickness	×1.16
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 6743a1c5188enew best when evaluated

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.804 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.294 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.020 Wh/km
frame mass	111.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 5 via crossover

hypothesisBuilding on the best-so-far lineage, the bet was that continuing to trim plate thickness and pulling front sweep back slightly would keep shedding weight and drag the same way the generation's earlier winner had.

methodReduced plate thickness ratio from 1.32 to 1.25, pulled front sweep back to 31.5 degrees, and trimmed arm width marginally.

resultScored 8.804 -- a NEW WINNER, beating both the just-set 8.846 mark and the original 8.849 best-so-far, the best fitness of the generation. The combined plate-thickness and front-sweep trims cut mass and drag together, echoing the pattern from earlier in the generation. Worth testing whether plate thickness can be trimmed even further while 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	3.638	154.6	29.2°
cold_headwind	6.983	296.5	56.3°
crosswind	5.386	228.8	45.9°
gusty_light	4.839	205.6	55.6°
hot_thin	3.897	165.5	33.5°
storm	7.020	297.9	65.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.04
arm width	×0.99
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	31.5°
rear sweep	38.7°
plate length	×1.06
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	29.9 mm
battery wedge	14.8°
plate thickness	×1.25
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 50612ef7c10f✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.804 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.291 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.026 Wh/km
frame mass	110.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 6 via designer

hypothesisThe designer's second attempt this generation, this time mirroring the population's converged traits -- narrow arm waist, cf_plate material, thickened plate -- instead of guessing from scratch, betting an informed hand-design could match evolved genomes.

methodBuilt a genome using cf_plate material, an arm waist and width close to population consensus, plate thickness boosted about 15%, and moderate sweep angles and deck gap.

resultFitness came in at 8.804, essentially matching the prior best-so-far exactly -- a strong showing for a hand-designed genome -- though it falls well short of the 8.417 champion born from crossover this generation. This shows the designer can reliably replicate population-level convergence once it copies known-good trait ranges rather than guessing blind. Next: hand-design directly from the new champion's slimmer arm-width/length values to see if manual tuning can push past it.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.618	153.7	29.3°
cold_headwind	7.000	297.2	56.5°
crosswind	5.381	228.6	45.9°
gusty_light	4.840	205.6	56.0°
hot_thin	3.883	165.0	33.6°
storm	7.026	298.1	65.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.03
arm width	×0.95
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.1 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	39.5°
plate length	×1.08
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	33.0 mm
battery wedge	11.0°
plate thickness	×1.15
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 72d12d79e45bnew best when evaluated

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.846 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.319 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.054 Wh/km
frame mass	112.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 5 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents were solid (8.911 and 8.97) but carried relatively thick arms; the bet was that trimming arm cross-section while opening front sweep a bit more could cut both weight and drag simultaneously.

methodIncreased front sweep by about 4 degrees, thinned the arms by 0.3 mm, and nudged plate length and thickness down slightly.

resultScored 8.846 -- a NEW WINNER, narrowly beating the incoming best-so-far of 8.849. The thinner arms paired with more front sweep evidently cut mass and drag together without tripping any structural limits. Worth pushing front sweep a little further while holding the rest of this recipe fixed.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.648	155.0	29.2°
cold_headwind	7.035	298.6	56.5°
crosswind	5.411	229.9	46.2°
gusty_light	4.859	206.4	56.0°
hot_thin	3.905	165.9	33.6°
storm	7.054	299.3	65.3°

gene	value
arm length	×1.02
arm width	×0.98
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.1 mm
front sweep	35.2°
rear sweep	38.9°
plate length	×1.15
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	28.7 mm
battery wedge	14.7°
plate thickness	×1.16
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 441be7ba797b

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.196 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.521 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.349 Wh/km
frame mass	125.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 6 via crossover

hypothesisA self-cross (mutation-only) of an already weak individual (9.082), testing whether nudging front sweep and thickening the plate further could rescue its performance.

methodFront sweep raised about 5 degrees, plate thickness increased further (30% vs 10%), and plate length stretched slightly more.

resultFitness landed at 9.196, slightly worse than its 9.082 parent and well off the 8.417 new best. The continued thickening trend keeps underperforming relative to the slimming direction found elsewhere this generation. Next: retire this thick-plate lineage and instead try mutating front sweep alone onto the new champion's slim-arm chassis.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.747	159.2	29.4°
cold_headwind	7.349	311.7	56.5°
crosswind	5.638	239.5	47.3°
gusty_light	5.037	214.0	57.2°
hot_thin	4.010	170.4	33.8°
storm	7.344	311.3	65.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.14
arm width	×0.98
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	36.5°
rear sweep	38.7°
plate length	×1.20
plate width	×1.08
deck gap	30.4 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×1.30
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 0254324201dc

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.455 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.649 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.612 Wh/km
frame mass	128.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 6 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents were already among this run's weaker performers (9.082 and 9.093); the bet was that longer arms plus a much thicker plate might unlock a sturdier niche, though starting stock offered little upside.

methodArm length stretched further (about 27% over stock vs 14%), plate thickness increased substantially (31% vs 10%), with arm width and deck gap left nearly unchanged.

resultFitness came in at 9.455, worse than both parents and well off this generation's new best of 8.417. This confirms the long-arm-plus-thick-plate lineage is a dead end -- the added mass from thickening outweighs any structural benefit. Next: abandon this lineage in favor of the slimmer-arm direction that produced the 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	3.778	160.5	29.6°
cold_headwind	7.612	322.3	57.4°
crosswind	5.779	245.5	48.4°
gusty_light	5.142	218.4	58.5°
hot_thin	4.045	171.8	34.1°
storm	7.539	319.2	65.9°

gene	value
arm length	×1.27
arm width	×0.99
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	31.4°
rear sweep	38.7°
plate length	×1.16
plate width	×1.07
deck gap	30.7 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×1.31
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 3e4926e196c8✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.542 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.684 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.716 Wh/km
frame mass	108.4 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 6 via designer

hypothesisThe designer hand-crafted a balanced, from-scratch baseline using the lighter pa12_cf material, testing a conservative diversity anchor rather than betting on any single aggressive trait.

methodBuilt a fresh genome with near-average arm and plate dimensions, standard (unboosted) plate thickness, and a switch to pa12_cf material.

resultFitness came in at 9.542, the worst valid result this generation, well behind the parent-derived designs and the 8.417 champion. The untreated pa12_cf material and un-thickened plate likely cost too much in mass or robustness compared to the cf_plate variants dominating the population. This shows a plain, untuned 'reasonable default' underperforms evolved genomes significantly. Next: retry a hand-designed baseline using cf_plate material with a thickened plate, mirroring what evolution is converging on.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.751	159.3	30.0°
cold_headwind	7.716	326.5	58.2°
crosswind	5.861	249.0	49.4°
gusty_light	5.173	219.8	59.6°
hot_thin	3.995	169.7	34.7°
storm	7.606	321.7	66.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.05
arm width	×1.05
arm waist	×0.75
arm thickness	6.0 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	40.0°
plate length	×1.10
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	13.0°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	pa12_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 4fd0c3fa38a5

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.17 mm, stock 1.47 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	174.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 6 via immigrant

hypothesisA random immigrant injected for diversity, betting that a very different region of design space -- long arms, high rear sweep, near-flat battery wedge -- might reveal an unexplored performance niche.

methodFresh random genome with arm length stretched about a third longer than stock, a thick 6.6 mm arm tube, high 55 degree rear sweep, wide deck gap, and a near-zero battery wedge, unrelated to any parent.

resultInvalid -- the plate web at its mid-section came in at 1.17 mm against a 1.47 mm minimum, despite a 34% plate thickness boost. This shows that a flat thickness multiplier doesn't guarantee adequate web margin once plate length/width also stretch, since the extremes eat the safety margin. Next idea: retry the long-arm, high-sweep concept but pair it with even more plate thickness or a narrower plate footprint to preserve the web.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.33
arm width	×0.97
arm waist	×0.71
arm thickness	6.6 mm
front sweep	36.3°
rear sweep	55.1°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×0.88
deck gap	38.7 mm
battery wedge	1.5°
plate thickness	×1.34
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 59ef9fe74392

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.50 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	100.5 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 6 via crossover

hypothesisTested a switch toward the lighter pa12_cf material blend paired with a reduced battery wedge angle, betting that a cheaper/lighter material could be offset by careful thickness tuning.

methodMaterial blend shifted toward pa12_cf, battery wedge angle dropped notably, arm tube wall thinned, and plate width narrowed slightly.

resultInvalid -- the main plate web measured only 1.50 mm against a 1.90 mm minimum, even with a 50% plate thickness multiplier, because pa12_cf's scaling combined with the width/thickness cuts ate the margin. This teaches that pa12_cf needs a more generous thickness allowance than cf_plate to hit the same web minimums. Next: retry this pa12_cf plus low-wedge combo with plate thickness pushed noticeably higher.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.96
arm width	×1.23
arm waist	×0.80
arm thickness	4.9 mm
front sweep	46.5°
rear sweep	52.5°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×0.86
deck gap	29.2 mm
battery wedge	5.9°
plate thickness	×1.50
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate eb5310ac9604

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	119.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 6 via crossover

hypothesisDrew plate-elongation traits from a weaker parent (9.093), betting that stretching the plate further lengthwise while shortening the arms could open up more usable frame area.

methodPlate length stretched further (about 24% over stock vs 12% in the weaker parent), plate width trimmed slightly, arm length shortened, and plate thickness eased back a touch.

resultInvalid -- the arm root tongues collide on the main plate, meaning the plate-length-to-arm-length ratio crossed the point where the tongue joints no longer fit. This shows plate elongation must be matched with adequate arm-root spacing, not just arm length. Next: retest the same plate stretch but widen the deck gap or arm waist to buy tongue clearance.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×1.11
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.4 mm
front sweep	31.1°
rear sweep	42.3°
plate length	×1.24
plate width	×0.99
deck gap	33.9 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×1.14
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 9b52b92a17c5

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_top 0.30 mm, stock 1.75 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	101.8 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 6 via crossover

hypothesisCrossed from the reigning best-so-far parent (8.804), betting that a much steeper front sweep and wider deck gap would improve crosswind handling.

methodFront sweep pushed up sharply from about 46 to 52 degrees, arm waist thinned substantially, deck gap widened by nearly 7 mm, and battery wedge raised.

resultInvalid, and severely so -- the top plate web collapsed to 0.30 mm against a 1.75 mm minimum, an order-of-magnitude violation. The aggressive arm-waist thinning combined with the wider deck gap essentially hollowed out the top plate. This combination sits far outside viable design space. Next: keep exploring steeper front sweep, but leave arm waist and deck gap close to parent values.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.97
arm width	×1.22
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	5.4 mm
front sweep	52.0°
rear sweep	54.5°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×0.88
deck gap	35.1 mm
battery wedge	10.0°
plate thickness	×1.36
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 6c6b4c8a7fa3

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	110.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 6 via crossover

hypothesisTwo mid-pack parents (8.911 and 8.915) bet on trimming arm wall thickness and both sweep angles together to shave mass, echoing the slimming direction that would prove decisive this generation.

methodArm tube wall thinned to the 4.0 mm floor, front and rear sweep both nudged down a degree or so, and plate thickness eased back slightly.

resultInvalid -- arm root tongues collide on the plate, the same failure mode seen in eb5310ac9604. This shows that reducing sweep angles alongside thin arms pushes the root tongue geometry too close together. Next: keep the arm-thinning move, which clearly works elsewhere, but preserve the parents' sweep angles instead of reducing both at once.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.02
arm width	×0.98
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	30.3°
rear sweep	37.3°
plate length	×1.16
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	28.7 mm
battery wedge	14.8°
plate thickness	×1.15
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 1ea6fbdda598

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	118.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 6 via crossover

hypothesisBet on lengthening the arms further while simultaneously tightening the deck gap, testing whether a more compact deck stack could save mass without sacrificing prop clearance.

methodArm length stretched about 20% over stock (vs 2% in the parent), arm thickness thinned to the minimum, and deck gap tightened by about 2 mm.

resultInvalid -- the rotor sits too close to the deck/battery, a clearance violation because the tightened deck gap didn't scale with the extra arm length's prop position. This shows deck gap has a floor that can't shrink independently of arm geometry. Next: keep the arm lengthening but hold deck gap at or above the parent's value.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.22
arm width	×0.96
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	39.1°
rear sweep	36.1°
plate length	×1.17
plate width	×1.04
deck gap	27.4 mm
battery wedge	13.2°
plate thickness	×1.18
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 42e69e9a014fnew best when evaluated

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.849 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.320 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.057 Wh/km
frame mass	114.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 4 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing a solid mid-pack frame with a weaker but differently-proportioned sibling, betting that trimming plate length and arm thickness while opening the deck gap slightly could cut mass without sacrificing the storm-scenario margin that's been the weak point.

methodShortened the main plate somewhat, thinned the arms slightly, opened the deck gap a touch, and lengthened the arms marginally.

resultFitness 8.849 — a NEW WINNER, beating the previous best-so-far of 8.9106 and both parents. The lighter arm/plate combo with slightly more deck clearance trimmed mass-driven losses across every adverse scenario (storm and cold-headwind both improved) without tripping a structural constraint; next worth testing is pushing arm thickness even thinner from this point to see how far the mass savings can go before margin 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	3.658	155.4	29.2°
cold_headwind	7.020	298.0	56.4°
crosswind	5.406	229.7	45.8°
gusty_light	4.863	206.6	55.7°
hot_thin	3.917	166.4	33.5°
storm	7.057	299.4	65.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.04
arm width	×0.98
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.1°
rear sweep	38.7°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	29.9 mm
battery wedge	14.8°
plate thickness	×1.32
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b8c2956342eanew best when evaluated

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.911 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.358 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.106 Wh/km
frame mass	117.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 3 via crossover

hypothesisAlso refining 83fa9cf73bfb, but betting in the opposite direction: cutting plate thickness meaningfully to shed mass while holding the rest of the winning geometry steady.

methodPlate thickness reduced substantially, front sweep trimmed slightly, material kept at cf_plate, and waist taper tightened marginally.

resultScored 8.911 - the best result of generation 3 and a NEW best-so-far, beating both its parent and sibling 4452fd0f6eb1. Every scenario improved, showing the mass cut from the thinner plate outweighed the small sweep tweak's contribution. Worth testing: push plate thickness even lower to find where the arm-tip 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	3.674	156.1	29.2°
cold_headwind	7.074	300.3	56.4°
crosswind	5.460	231.9	46.2°
gusty_light	4.896	208.0	55.9°
hot_thin	3.936	167.2	33.5°
storm	7.106	301.5	65.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.02
arm width	×0.98
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.4 mm
front sweep	31.3°
rear sweep	38.7°
plate length	×1.16
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	28.7 mm
battery wedge	14.7°
plate thickness	×1.17
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 2d7d1cb6e889

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.915 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.360 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.110 Wh/km
frame mass	113.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 5 via crossover

hypothesisMirroring the successful plate-thickness-trimming trend, this candidate bet that cutting plate thickness even more aggressively, combined with slightly narrower plate and arm width, would compound the weight savings.

methodCut plate thickness ratio sharply from 1.28 to 1.04, trimmed plate width and arm width slightly, and increased front sweep a touch.

resultScored 8.915, close to its parents but behind the generation's new best of 8.804, suggesting this plate-thickness cut went too far and added flex penalty that offset the weight savings. Not a new winner. Worth searching for the sweet spot between this candidate's 1.04 thickness ratio and 6743a1c5188e's winning 1.25.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.670	155.9	29.3°
cold_headwind	7.097	301.2	56.6°
crosswind	5.459	231.9	46.4°
gusty_light	4.899	208.1	56.5°
hot_thin	3.928	166.9	33.6°
storm	7.110	301.6	65.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.02
arm width	×0.95
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.4 mm
front sweep	39.3°
rear sweep	36.1°
plate length	×1.17
plate width	×1.04
deck gap	29.4 mm
battery wedge	13.4°
plate thickness	×1.04
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 1bf68b45b50f

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.082 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.444 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.277 Wh/km
frame mass	115.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 5 via crossover

hypothesisCombined the best-so-far parent (42e69e9a014f, 8.849) with b8c2956342ea (8.911), betting that longer arms and a wider plate would add stability margin while thinning cross-sections shed weight.

methodLengthened arms substantially (to 1.14x), widened the plate, and thinned both arm and plate thickness.

resultScored 9.082, worse than both parents and off the pace from the best-so-far. The longer, thinner arms likely flexed more and added drag that outweighed any weight savings. Not a new winner. Worth retrying arm lengthening while holding thickness at the parent baseline instead of reducing it simultaneously.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.680	156.3	29.4°
cold_headwind	7.277	308.7	56.7°
crosswind	5.560	236.2	47.4°
gusty_light	4.962	210.8	57.4°
hot_thin	3.940	167.4	33.9°
storm	7.243	307.1	66.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.14
arm width	×0.98
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	31.4°
rear sweep	38.7°
plate length	×1.16
plate width	×1.08
deck gap	30.4 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×1.10
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 077a27004744

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.093 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.462 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.262 Wh/km
frame mass	121.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 5 via crossover

hypothesisParent b8c2956342ea was a solid all-rounder (8.911) but still lagging in cold and storm scenarios; crossing it with the weaker b14dfa732835 (9.111) was a bet that more rear sweep and a wider arm cross-section would buy stability in wind without costing too much weight.

methodWidened the arms further, opened the deck gap by about 5 mm, increased rear sweep by nearly 4 degrees, and trimmed plate length slightly.

resultLanded at 9.093, worse than both parents and well off the pace, not a new winner. The extra arm width and deck gap likely added mass and drag that the added rear sweep couldn't pay back, especially visible in the still-high cold_headwind and storm numbers. Worth testing rear sweep increase in isolation, without the accompanying arm-width and deck-gap growth.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.715	157.8	29.4°
cold_headwind	7.250	307.6	56.4°
crosswind	5.576	236.9	46.9°
gusty_light	4.987	211.9	56.6°
hot_thin	3.979	169.0	33.8°
storm	7.262	308.0	65.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.02
arm width	×1.11
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.4 mm
front sweep	31.3°
rear sweep	42.4°
plate length	×1.12
plate width	×1.04
deck gap	33.8 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×1.17
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate ca33fd2a1134

click to open the 3D model

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	114.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 5 via crossover

hypothesisWanted to fuse the then-best genome (42e69e9a014f, 8.849) with traits from the untested a24842d610fe line, betting that narrower, longer plates could shave weight while the best-so-far parent's other genes carried performance.

methodNarrowed plate width, stretched plate length further, and pushed plate thickness ratio up even higher, with arm length trimmed slightly.

resultInvalid: the plate main web collapsed to 0.87 mm against a 1.90 mm stock minimum. Narrowing width while also lengthening the plate ate through the structural margin that the higher thickness ratio was supposed to protect. Next time, cap plate-width reduction whenever plate thickness ratio climbs past roughly 1.25.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.91
arm width	×0.98
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.5 mm
front sweep	39.2°
rear sweep	38.7°
plate length	×1.18
plate width	×0.94
deck gap	25.3 mm
battery wedge	14.7°
plate thickness	×1.28
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 3ff117767c28

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	126.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 5 via crossover

hypothesisTwo mid-pack parents (8.97 and 9.088) were combined on the bet that wider plate and arms would buy stiffness margin, letting the deck gap be tightened for a compact, lighter stack.

methodWidened the plate and arms, shrank the deck gap by about 1.3 mm, and nudged arm waist up slightly.

resultInvalid: the rotor ended up too close to the deck/battery stack. Tightening the deck gap while simultaneously growing arm width pushed the rotor disk into forbidden territory. Lesson: only tighten deck gap when arm width stays at or below the parent baseline.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.03
arm width	×1.07
arm waist	×0.56
arm thickness	4.2 mm
front sweep	36.5°
rear sweep	38.1°
plate length	×1.16
plate width	×1.10
deck gap	27.8 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×1.32
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate e445d13c8830

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	122.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 5 via crossover

hypothesisLeaning on the best-so-far parent (42e69e9a014f, 8.849), the bet was that less rear sweep and a looser arm waist could shave drag, borrowing untested plate proportions from the invalid 6ef8d3181d92 line.

methodReduced rear sweep by about 4.7 degrees, loosened arm waist, lengthened the plate slightly, and narrowed plate width.

resultInvalid: plate main web thinned to 1.34 mm against the 1.90 mm floor, the same failure mode as ca33fd2a1134. This reinforces that narrowing plate width while lengthening it is a reliable way to violate the web-thickness constraint. Next step: add a coupled width-vs-length structural check before running the flight sim on such crosses.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.04
arm width	×0.98
arm waist	×0.68
arm thickness	4.2 mm
front sweep	34.5°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.12
plate width	×0.97
deck gap	29.9 mm
battery wedge	14.8°
plate thickness	×1.39
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 9d7f7fc96a01

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	91.5 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 5 via crossover

hypothesisWith two 8.97 parents suggesting a plateau, the bet was to break out via a material swap to pa12_cf rather than more geometry tweaks, hoping the composite would hold stiffness at a lower weight.

methodSwitched material from carbon-fiber plate to PA12-CF, shortened arm length slightly, and increased plate thickness ratio.

resultInvalid: arm tip deflection exceeded the limit under pa12_cf. The material's lower stiffness modulus wasn't compensated by the modest plate thickness bump. Idea: pair any pa12_cf material trials with increased arm thickness, not just plate thickness, to offset the softer material.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.97
arm width	×0.93
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.4 mm
front sweep	38.9°
rear sweep	35.7°
plate length	×1.17
plate width	×1.07
deck gap	29.4 mm
battery wedge	13.5°
plate thickness	×1.29
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 5989c0b3e245

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	118.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 5 via crossover

hypothesisParents at 9.088 and 8.97 suggested there was headroom in shrinking frame height; the bet was that a much tighter deck gap would cut weight while thinner arms trimmed drag.

methodCut the deck gap by nearly a third (to 20 mm), loosened arm waist, and thinned the arms to 4.0 mm.

resultInvalid: deck gap fell below the minimum clearance needed for the FC/ESC stack. This is a hard floor independent of the other genes touched here. Lesson: treat deck gap as bounded below around the low-to-mid 20s of mm in future crossovers.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.02
arm width	×0.98
arm waist	×0.79
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.7°
rear sweep	36.3°
plate length	×1.16
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	20.0 mm
battery wedge	14.9°
plate thickness	×1.28
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 5e081f3618af

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_mid 1.17 mm, stock 1.47 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	117.2 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 5 via immigrant

hypothesisA random immigrant injected purely for diversity, probing an unexplored corner of the space -- thick arms, steep sweep angles, and PET-CF material -- outside the current crossover lineage.

methodFresh random draw: thicker arms (5.3 mm), pronounced front/rear sweep (45.9/53.0 degrees), heavier plate thickness ratio, and PET-CF material.

resultInvalid: plate_mid web came in at 1.17 mm against PET-CF's 1.47 mm stock minimum, despite an overall high plate thickness ratio. PET-CF apparently carries a stricter baseline that this immigrant's proportions didn't respect. Worth biasing future PET-CF immigrants toward a higher plate thickness ratio specifically at the mid-plate location.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.96
arm width	×1.22
arm waist	×0.78
arm thickness	5.3 mm
front sweep	45.9°
rear sweep	53.0°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×0.88
deck gap	28.4 mm
battery wedge	7.7°
plate thickness	×1.49
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate b01a11a19703

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	119.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 5 via crossover

hypothesisCombined a 9.088 parent with the untested a24842d610fe line, betting that thinner arms and a tighter rear sweep could trim weight and drag further.

methodThinned arms to 4.0 mm, reduced rear sweep by about 2.3 degrees, widened arms slightly, and trimmed plate length.

resultInvalid: rotor disks overlapped on tip clearance. Tightening rear sweep while thinning the arms brought the rotors too close together. Lesson: rear sweep reductions need a matching arm length or width increase to preserve rotor clearance.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.02
arm width	×1.02
arm waist	×0.66
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.14
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	29.4 mm
battery wedge	14.7°
plate thickness	×1.32
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate bc3056e385c4

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.83 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	116.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 5 via crossover

hypothesisDrawing again on the a24842d610fe line, this candidate bet that narrowing plate width while keeping other dimensions close to the 8.97 parent's baseline would trim weight without sacrificing rigidity.

methodNarrowed plate width, slightly reduced rear sweep and plate length, and nudged deck gap up a touch.

resultInvalid: plate main web thinned to 0.83 mm against the 1.90 mm floor -- the third plate-web failure of the generation tied to width reduction. This strongly suggests plate width has a hard lower bound tied to plate thickness ratio. Worth deriving an explicit plate-width floor as a function of thickness ratio before proposing more crosses like this.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.02
arm width	×1.01
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.2 mm
front sweep	36.6°
rear sweep	36.9°
plate length	×1.15
plate width	×0.94
deck gap	29.4 mm
battery wedge	14.7°
plate thickness	×1.33
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate ca3d8e93df9b

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (petg)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	144.2 g
material	petg
born	generation 5 via immigrant

hypothesisAnother random immigrant for diversity, this one testing petg material with long, thick arms on the bet that bulk could compensate for petg's lower stiffness.

methodFresh random draw: long arms (1.23x), thick cross-section (5.9 mm), wide sweep angles, a longer plate, and petg material.

resultInvalid: arm tip deflection exceeded the limit despite the thick 5.9 mm arms. Petg's low stiffness modulus couldn't be offset by thickness alone at this arm length. This suggests petg is a poor fit for longer arms regardless of cross-section; future immigrants should either exclude petg above roughly 1.1x arm length or pair it with much shorter arms.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.23
arm width	×1.31
arm waist	×0.85
arm thickness	5.9 mm
front sweep	45.9°
rear sweep	41.8°
plate length	×1.25
plate width	×1.07
deck gap	35.5 mm
battery wedge	14.2°
plate thickness	×1.05
material	petg

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate e6d8abe43a27

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.970 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.397 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.147 Wh/km
frame mass	124.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 4 via crossover

hypothesisCombining two mid-pack frames, betting that swapping front sweep up while pulling rear sweep down would rebalance drag between the front and rear rotor pairs for a net efficiency gain.

methodIncreased front sweep, widened the plate a little, decreased rear sweep, and lowered the battery wedge angle slightly.

resultValid at 8.97 Wh/km, essentially matching its 8.976 parent but not beating it and well short of the 8.911 best-so-far, so the sweep rebalancing was a wash. Worth testing a larger front/rear sweep split in the same direction 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	3.717	157.9	29.2°
cold_headwind	7.085	300.8	56.2°
crosswind	5.514	234.3	45.9°
gusty_light	4.938	209.8	55.6°
hot_thin	3.981	169.1	33.5°
storm	7.147	303.2	65.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.02
arm width	×0.93
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.4 mm
front sweep	38.8°
rear sweep	35.7°
plate length	×1.17
plate width	×1.07
deck gap	29.4 mm
battery wedge	13.5°
plate thickness	×1.28
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 4452fd0f6eb1new best when evaluated

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.970 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.395 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.151 Wh/km
frame mass	120.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 3 via crossover

hypothesisA refinement of co-leader 83fa9cf73bfb, betting that a modest sweep increase paired with a slightly thinner, more tapered arm could nudge efficiency up without hurting stiffness.

methodFront sweep raised a few degrees, arm width up slightly, arm thickness trimmed by 0.2 mm, and waist taper tightened a touch.

resultScored 8.97 - a NEW WINNER, edging past the prior best-so-far of 8.976. Every scenario improved by a small, consistent margin, showing that fine mutations around an already-strong parent can pay off. Worth testing: push front sweep a bit further in the same direction (toward 38-39 degrees) to see if the trend continues.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.708	157.5	29.3°
cold_headwind	7.115	302.0	56.3°
crosswind	5.498	233.6	46.2°
gusty_light	4.932	209.5	56.1°
hot_thin	3.967	168.5	33.6°
storm	7.151	303.4	65.3°

gene	value
arm length	×1.03
arm width	×1.01
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.2 mm
front sweep	36.6°
rear sweep	38.2°
plate length	×1.16
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	29.1 mm
battery wedge	14.7°
plate thickness	×1.32
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 88c6ef3f75ea

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.088 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.462 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.253 Wh/km
frame mass	126.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 4 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two twin-fitness parents, hypothesizing that opening the arm waist for more clearance and easing rear sweep could reduce drag further from an already-solid baseline.

methodWidened the arm waist and reduced rear sweep moderately.

resultValid but 9.088 Wh/km, worse than both identical 8.976 parents, so this waist/sweep combination added drag or mass rather than cutting it. Worth testing a smaller waist-widening increment to see if a partial change stays neutral or improves on the parents.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.732	158.5	29.2°
cold_headwind	7.226	306.6	56.2°
crosswind	5.570	236.6	46.5°
gusty_light	4.988	211.9	56.3°
hot_thin	4.002	170.0	33.6°
storm	7.253	307.6	65.3°

gene	value
arm length	×1.02
arm width	×0.98
arm waist	×0.67
arm thickness	4.4 mm
front sweep	33.1°
rear sweep	36.3°
plate length	×1.16
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	28.9 mm
battery wedge	14.7°
plate thickness	×1.32
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate b14dfa732835

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.111 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.478 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.266 Wh/km
frame mass	130.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 4 via crossover

hypothesisBlending two near-best frames, betting a slightly thicker arm and a small battery-wedge bump would trade a touch of mass for structural margin without hurting aero.

methodThickened the arms a bit, shifted material fully toward carbon-fiber plate, widened the plate marginally, and increased battery wedge angle slightly.

resultValid but 9.111 Wh/km, worse than both parents and well off the 8.911 best-so-far — the extra arm mass wasn't repaid by any aero gain. Worth testing the same crossover with arm thickness left 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	3.753	159.5	29.3°
cold_headwind	7.216	306.2	56.0°
crosswind	5.600	237.9	46.3°
gusty_light	5.008	212.8	55.8°
hot_thin	4.023	170.9	33.6°
storm	7.266	308.2	65.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.02
arm width	×0.98
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.8 mm
front sweep	32.9°
rear sweep	38.7°
plate length	×1.16
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	28.9 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×1.31
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 56a06bf8c7a9

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.387 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.635 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.503 Wh/km
frame mass	133.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 4 via crossover

hypothesisCombining a weak, over-swept parent with a mid-pack frame, betting a slightly wider plate and longer arm could offset the weak parent's known drag penalty.

methodWidened the plate slightly, lengthened the arms a touch, and reduced front sweep marginally.

resultValid but 9.387 Wh/km, the worst result of this generation and worse than both parents — the weak parent's high rear sweep and thin arms evidently dominated any benefit from the small plate/arm tweaks. This lineage's rear-sweep/arm-thickness combination looks like a dead end; deprioritize further crosses from 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	3.807	161.7	29.5°
cold_headwind	7.503	318.0	56.6°
crosswind	5.786	245.8	47.6°
gusty_light	5.143	218.5	57.4°
hot_thin	4.077	173.2	33.9°
storm	7.496	317.6	65.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.26
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.6 mm
front sweep	32.7°
rear sweep	39.0°
plate length	×1.20
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	29.0 mm
battery wedge	14.0°
plate thickness	×1.30
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate a24842d610fe

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	119.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 4 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the current best-so-far frame with a weaker, more swept sibling, betting that extra sweep and a longer plate could shave more drag off the leader without giving up its low mass.

methodIncreased front sweep substantially, lengthened the main plate, shortened the arms slightly, and pulled the battery deck closer to the arms.

resultInvalid — the tighter deck gap combined with shorter arms pushed a rotor into the deck/battery volume. The lesson is that sweep and plate-length increases need a floor on deck gap, not a cut; worth retesting the same sweep/plate stretch while holding deck gap near the parent's 28-29mm.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.92
arm width	×0.98
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.4 mm
front sweep	39.2°
rear sweep	38.7°
plate length	×1.26
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	25.5 mm
battery wedge	14.7°
plate thickness	×1.24
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 3d3552460bcf

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm root tongues collide on the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	111.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 4 via crossover

hypothesisTesting whether shifting the leader's plate material blend and thinning the plate could unlock a lighter, still-best frame, using a weaker crosswind-heavy parent as the second donor.

methodShifted material mix away from pure carbon fiber, thinned the main plate, narrowed the arms slightly, and reduced front sweep a touch.

resultInvalid — the thinner plate combined with narrower arms let the arm-root tongues collide on the main plate. Plate thinning and arm narrowing can't be stacked without rechecking tongue clearance; next try the material/thickness change alone with arm width left at the parent value.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.02
arm width	×0.94
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.4 mm
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	38.9°
plate length	×1.15
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	28.7 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×1.05
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 9bf632df6fb5

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	229.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 4 via immigrant

hypothesisA random immigrant introduced to keep genetic diversity and probe an extreme, heavy-arm/high-sweep region of the design space the crossover population hasn't explored.

methodSubstantially thickened and lengthened the arms, cranked both front and rear sweep way up, widened the plate, and dropped the battery wedge angle sharply.

resultInvalid — the aggressive sweep/thickness combination shifted the arm tongues so their bolts miss the main plate entirely. This extreme corner of the design space looks structurally incompatible with the current bolt pattern; a tamer immigrant with sweep capped nearer 40° would be a better next probe.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.18
arm width	×1.07
arm waist	×1.23
arm thickness	7.8 mm
front sweep	47.6°
rear sweep	59.5°
plate length	×0.97
plate width	×1.22
deck gap	43.3 mm
battery wedge	5.8°
plate thickness	×1.37
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 4ddc9b663441

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	114.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 4 via crossover

hypothesisPairing the leader with an already-invalid ancestor to see if trimming that ancestor's oversized plate length back toward the leader's proportions could rescue a viable, competitive frame.

methodShrank plate length substantially, widened the arms slightly, and nudged front sweep down a fraction of a degree.

resultStill invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery, the same failure mode as candidate a24842d610fe, suggesting this lineage's arm-length/plate-length combination is fundamentally deck-gap-starved. Next, try holding plate length near the leader's own value instead of splitting the difference with the invalid parent.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.16
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.4 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	39.1°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.7 mm
battery wedge	14.6°
plate thickness	×1.22
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate c9c58bce18f6

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	130.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 4 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two weaker parents to see if a much longer arm paired with a tighter deck gap could claw back efficiency by shrinking the airframe footprint.

methodPulled the deck gap in substantially, lengthened the arms further, and slightly increased plate length.

resultInvalid — the deck gap shrank past the point where the FC/ESC stack still fits, a hard packaging floor rather than an aero tradeoff. This confirms deck gap has a hard lower bound near the mid-20s of mm regardless of arm length; next, test the same arm-length increase but leave deck gap unchanged from the parent.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.31
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.6 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	39.1°
plate length	×1.17
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	22.5 mm
battery wedge	14.0°
plate thickness	×1.30
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 33c4e9af1d8a

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.36 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	134.9 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 4 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two already-invalid frames to see if increasing plate thickness could restore structural viability while still chasing the extra front sweep both parents carried.

methodIncreased plate thickness further, increased front sweep, narrowed the plate slightly, and reduced battery wedge angle.

resultStill invalid — plate web too thin relative to stock, meaning the thickness increase didn't go far enough (or was undercut by the narrower plate width) to satisfy the structural floor. This lineage seems to need a much bigger thickness jump, not an incremental one; next, try plate thickness alone pushed further without changing plate width.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.08
arm width	×1.23
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.1 mm
front sweep	41.5°
rear sweep	39.8°
plate length	×1.16
plate width	×0.97
deck gap	29.2 mm
battery wedge	13.7°
plate thickness	×1.60
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate c3396aa525d5

click to open the 3D model

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	111.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 4 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the leader with a weaker, more front-swept frame to test whether narrowing the plate and reducing rear sweep could cut mass while keeping the leader's low-drag arm geometry.

methodNarrowed the plate substantially, reduced rear sweep, increased front sweep slightly, and widened the arm waist a touch.

resultInvalid — the narrower plate dropped the web thickness well below the structural stock minimum, so the mass-saving bet failed outright on strength grounds. Plate width can't be cut this aggressively without also boosting plate thickness in compensation; next, retry the same rear/front sweep changes with plate width left near the parent value.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.04
arm width	×0.98
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.4 mm
front sweep	32.6°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.16
plate width	×0.85
deck gap	28.7 mm
battery wedge	14.8°
plate thickness	×1.17
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 6ef8d3181d92

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	119.7 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 4 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing a weaker high-rear-sweep frame with the leader to see if pushing rear sweep even further while trimming plate length could unlock additional efficiency from extreme sweep geometry.

methodIncreased rear sweep substantially, increased front sweep, shortened the plate somewhat, and thinned the arms slightly.

resultInvalid — the extreme sweep angles moved the arm tongues far enough that their mounting bolts miss the main plate, the same failure as the 9bf632df6fb5 immigrant. This is now the second time high combined sweep (>40° front, >45° rear) has broken the bolt pattern, suggesting a firm sweep ceiling; next, test rear sweep capped near 40° with the same plate-length trim.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.10
arm width	×0.99
arm waist	×0.55
arm thickness	4.2 mm
front sweep	43.6°
rear sweep	46.0°
plate length	×1.22
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	28.9 mm
battery wedge	14.9°
plate thickness	×1.18
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 4d7d0d0b9bba

click to open the 3D model

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	151.1 g
material	petg
born	generation 4 via immigrant

hypothesisA second random immigrant probing a PETG-material, high-rear-sweep design far outside the carbon-fiber population, to check whether a lighter print material could still meet structural limits.

methodSwitched material to PETG, thickened arms substantially, increased rear sweep sharply, lengthened the plate, and narrowed the plate width.

resultInvalid — PETG's lower stiffness meant the plate web came out at less than a fifth of the required stock thickness, an enormous structural shortfall. PETG looks non-viable at these plate proportions under the current constraint model; future PETG immigrants should pair the material switch with a much thicker plate from the outset rather than default thickness.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.96
arm width	×0.88
arm waist	×1.02
arm thickness	8.6 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	54.6°
plate length	×1.27
plate width	×0.91
deck gap	37.9 mm
battery wedge	7.3°
plate thickness	×1.01
material	petg

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate f70bbea1c415new best when evaluated

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.976 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.399 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.154 Wh/km
frame mass	124.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 0 via seed

hypothesisWith the baseline seed already logged at 9.621 Wh/km and struggling most in storm and headwind, this candidate bets that a narrow-waisted, thin-armed cf_plate frame with a steep battery tilt could cut mass and improve trim without sacrificing stiffness.

methodKeeps arm length and width near stock, narrows the arm waist sharply, thins the arms to 4.4mm, tilts the battery up to nearly 15°, and thickens the plate stock in cf_plate.

resultNEW WINNER at 8.976 Wh/km, beating the baseline seed's 9.621 across every scenario (storm 7.15 vs 7.7, cold headwind 7.1 vs 7.74). The combination of lighter, narrow-waisted arms with extra plate stiffness and a steeper battery tilt likely cut both structural mass and trim drag at once. Worth testing: push the arm waist even narrower or the battery wedge steeper still, now that this cf_plate/thin-arm formula is confirmed viable.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.710	157.6	29.2°
cold_headwind	7.097	301.2	56.2°
crosswind	5.514	234.2	46.1°
gusty_light	4.939	209.8	55.6°
hot_thin	3.977	169.0	33.5°
storm	7.154	303.5	65.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.02
arm width	×0.98
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.4 mm
front sweep	33.1°
rear sweep	38.7°
plate length	×1.16
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	28.9 mm
battery wedge	14.7°
plate thickness	×1.32
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 83fa9cf73bfb

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	8.976 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.399 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.155 Wh/km
frame mass	124.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 1 via crossover

hypothesisWith the champion already at the generation's best fitness, self-crossing it tests whether that configuration is a stable local optimum or whether crossover noise could push it even lower.

methodNear-identical genes to the champion — only trivial numerical noise from self-crossover, with arm geometry, sweep angles, and cf_plate material essentially unchanged.

resultFitness 8.976, matching the champion almost exactly but not beating the pre-generation best-so-far of 8.9757 — not a new winner, just a re-derivation of the same optimum. This is strong evidence the champion sits in a tight, stable local basin where small perturbations snap back to the same performance. Worth testing next: apply a deliberately larger, targeted mutation (e.g. to arm waist or deck gap) on this lineage instead of near-identical self-crosses, to actually probe outside 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	3.710	157.6	29.2°
cold_headwind	7.098	301.3	56.2°
crosswind	5.514	234.2	46.1°
gusty_light	4.939	209.8	55.6°
hot_thin	3.977	169.0	33.5°
storm	7.155	303.6	65.0°

gene	value
arm length	×1.02
arm width	×0.98
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.4 mm
front sweep	33.1°
rear sweep	38.7°
plate length	×1.16
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	28.9 mm
battery wedge	14.7°
plate thickness	×1.32
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 8e9a69935b5d✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.202 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.532 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.340 Wh/km
frame mass	134.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 3 via designer

hypothesisA hand-designed proposal testing an asymmetric sweep layout - much more rear sweep than front - on a bigger plate footprint, to see if crosswind/gust handling improves.

methodRear sweep set far wider than front sweep, plate length and width both enlarged substantially, and battery wedge lowered.

resultScored 9.202 - valid and better than sibling designer c842b896dcef, but still well behind the generation's winners. The oversized plate likely added mass across every scenario rather than buying aero benefit. Worth testing: keep the asymmetric sweep idea but shrink the plate footprint back toward stock dimensions.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	3.791	161.1	29.2°
cold_headwind	7.335	311.1	56.2°
crosswind	5.627	239.0	46.8°
gusty_light	5.042	214.2	56.9°
hot_thin	4.057	172.4	33.5°
storm	7.340	311.2	65.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×0.82
arm waist	×0.65
arm thickness	4.6 mm
front sweep	30.5°
rear sweep	57.0°
plate length	×1.30
plate width	×1.25
deck gap	28.0 mm
battery wedge	8.0°
plate thickness	×1.15
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 03f39507cfc5

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.304 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.573 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.461 Wh/km
frame mass	127.4 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 3 via crossover

hypothesisBuilding on co-leader f70bbea1c415, this cross bet that much wider front sweep plus a longer plate would improve crosswind and storm handling.

methodFront sweep increased by about 7 degrees, plate and arms lengthened, plate thickness eased back slightly.

resultScored 9.304 - valid but worse than the 8.976 parent and the pre-generation best-so-far. Every scenario got worse in step, suggesting the wider sweep and longer plate added drag or mass without an aero payoff. Worth testing: revert front sweep toward the parent's ~33 degrees while keeping the plate-length change, to isolate 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	3.766	160.0	29.4°
cold_headwind	7.461	316.2	56.8°
crosswind	5.686	241.6	47.8°
gusty_light	5.076	215.6	57.6°
hot_thin	4.030	171.2	33.9°
storm	7.418	314.3	65.8°

gene	value
arm length	×1.10
arm width	×0.99
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.4 mm
front sweep	40.3°
rear sweep	38.7°
plate length	×1.30
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	28.9 mm
battery wedge	14.9°
plate thickness	×1.18
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate c842b896dcef✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.344 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.610 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.468 Wh/km
frame mass	131.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 3 via designer

hypothesisA hand-designed proposal betting that longer, narrower, more tapered arms paired with a thicker plate could beat the population's incremental crossovers on efficiency.

methodArms drawn 25% longer and 20% narrower with a tight waist taper, plate thickened to 1.30x stock, all in cf_plate.

resultScored 9.344 - valid but well off the pace of both the pre-generation best (8.976) and the generation's eventual winners (8.911). Every scenario ran higher-cost, suggesting the longer/narrower arms added drag or mass the thicker plate couldn't offset. Worth testing: keep the plate-thickness idea but scale arm length/width back toward stock rather than pushing both extremes 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	3.791	161.1	29.5°
cold_headwind	7.468	316.6	56.4°
crosswind	5.756	244.5	47.5°
gusty_light	5.119	217.5	57.2°
hot_thin	4.060	172.5	33.9°
storm	7.463	316.3	65.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.25
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	4.6 mm
front sweep	33.0°
rear sweep	39.0°
plate length	×1.20
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	29.0 mm
battery wedge	14.0°
plate thickness	×1.30
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 07659e37087d✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.398 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.598 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.600 Wh/km
frame mass	102.6 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 3 via designer

hypothesisA hand-designed 'robustness-first' proposal betting that a thicker arm and wider deck gap in pa12_cf would cut worst-case cold and storm penalties even at some efficiency cost.

methodArm thickness set to 6.0 mm with a moderate waist taper, deck gap widened, material switched to pa12_cf, and plate thickness eased down.

resultScored 9.398 - the worst valid result of the generation, with cold_headwind and storm both higher than the winners. The extra arm and deck-gap margin didn't buy enough robustness to offset the added mass and drag. Worth testing: deprioritize pa12_cf designer proposals unless paired with much thinner geometry elsewhere, since the cf_plate lineage is winning on both efficiency and validity.

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	29.9°
cold_headwind	7.600	321.8	57.9°
crosswind	5.755	244.5	49.0°
gusty_light	5.096	216.5	59.1°
hot_thin	3.945	167.6	34.7°
storm	7.491	317.1	66.6°

gene	value
arm length	×1.05
arm width	×1.00
arm waist	×0.75
arm thickness	6.0 mm
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	37.0°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	10.0°
plate thickness	×0.90
material	pa12_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate dea29e6b57ad

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	118.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 3 via crossover

hypothesisBoth parents were unproven crossover stock, so this cross bet on pairing much slimmer arms with a longer reach to cut mass while keeping lift arm authority.

methodArm width cut sharply, arms lengthened, waist taper tightened, and plate thickness eased back slightly from the parent blend.

resultInvalid: rotor too close to deck/battery. Lengthening the arms while also re-tapering the waist shifted the rotor plane inward without any compensating deck-gap increase. Worth testing: repeat this width/waist combo but pair any arm-length increase with a larger deck gap or battery wedge.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.16
arm width	×0.75
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.4 mm
front sweep	33.2°
rear sweep	39.0°
plate length	×1.16
plate width	×1.00
deck gap	26.7 mm
battery wedge	14.6°
plate thickness	×1.23
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate c0681ef6bef2

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pa12_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	91.4 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 3 via crossover

hypothesisWith co-leader f70bbea1c415 tied for best-so-far, this was a self-cross probing whether swapping to the lighter pa12_cf polymer could shave weight off an already-strong design.

methodMaterial swapped from cf_plate toward pa12_cf, plate widened, plate length shortened slightly, and front sweep reduced a couple degrees.

resultInvalid: arm tip deflection under pa12_cf. Arm thickness stayed at the cf_plate-tuned 4.4 mm, and the weaker polymer couldn't hold that arm stiff enough. Worth testing: retry the same material swap but thicken the arm to compensate for pa12_cf's lower stiffness.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.02
arm width	×0.93
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.4 mm
front sweep	30.8°
rear sweep	38.7°
plate length	×1.06
plate width	×1.11
deck gap	28.9 mm
battery wedge	14.7°
plate thickness	×1.32
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 013fe1c44e4e

click to open the 3D model

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	75.0 g
material	asa
born	generation 3 via immigrant

hypothesisA random immigrant injected to explore outside the current lineage, testing a stockier short-arm, wide-sweep ASA build for fresh diversity.

methodFresh genome: shorter, wider arms with a tighter waist and thin 4.0 mm walls, wide sweep angles front and rear, and a plate thinned to about 0.96x stock in ASA.

resultInvalid: main plate web measured only 1.37 mm against a 1.90 mm stock requirement. The thin ASA plate simply didn't have enough margin once length/width scaling was applied. Worth testing: keep the diverse geometry but raise plate thickness multiplier well above 1.0 whenever ASA is chosen.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.85
arm width	×1.26
arm waist	×1.04
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	41.4°
rear sweep	34.9°
plate length	×1.09
plate width	×0.85
deck gap	40.9 mm
battery wedge	11.2°
plate thickness	×0.96
material	asa

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 0f2b6ba9232f

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	142.6 g
material	asa
born	generation 3 via crossover

hypothesisParent 3b919be0b361 was a weak performer (9.733), so this cross tried rescuing it by blending in more battery wedge and a longer plate for stability.

methodBattery wedge increased, plate lengthened further, arm thickness trimmed slightly, and front sweep pulled back a couple degrees.

resultInvalid: arm tongue bolts miss the main plate. Stretching the plate length past a certain point broke alignment with the fixed arm-tongue bolt pattern. Worth testing: cap plate length scaling relative to arm-tongue position, or move the bolt pattern in tandem with plate length.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.14
arm width	×1.17
arm waist	×0.92
arm thickness	7.8 mm
front sweep	39.7°
rear sweep	48.9°
plate length	×1.28
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	35.9 mm
battery wedge	13.8°
plate thickness	×1.16
material	asa

parents

candidate c4995907b02a

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (asa)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	125.1 g
material	asa
born	generation 3 via crossover

hypothesisThis cross bet that trimming sweep and arm length on an ASA build could cut weight while a thicker plate held everything together.

methodFront sweep reduced several degrees, plate narrowed, arm shortened slightly, plate thickness nudged up, all on a 6.0 mm ASA arm with an aggressive waist taper.

resultInvalid: arm tip deflection under ASA. The aggressive waist taper combined with ASA's lower stiffness overwhelmed the thin gains from a thicker plate. Worth testing: the same sweep/length trim but with a gentler waist taper to protect stiffness.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.16
arm width	×1.02
arm waist	×1.30
arm thickness	6.0 mm
front sweep	30.0°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.20
plate width	×1.17
deck gap	30.1 mm
battery wedge	2.7°
plate thickness	×1.06
material	asa

parents

candidate d2924497c88c

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.57 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	126.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 3 via crossover

hypothesisA refinement of co-leader f70bbea1c415, betting that small sweep and deck-gap tweaks could squeeze out extra aero efficiency without touching the winning core geometry.

methodRear and front sweep widened a couple degrees each, arms widened slightly, and deck gap opened marginally.

resultInvalid: main plate web measured only 0.57 mm against a 1.90 mm requirement, despite carrying a high 1.42x thickness multiplier from the parent. The sweep/deck-gap changes apparently interacted with plate geometry to locally thin the web regardless of the multiplier. Worth testing: check plate web thickness directly whenever sweep or deck gap changes, since the multiplier alone doesn't guarantee margin.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.08
arm width	×1.23
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.1 mm
front sweep	38.5°
rear sweep	39.7°
plate length	×1.16
plate width	×0.92
deck gap	29.5 mm
battery wedge	14.4°
plate thickness	×1.42
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate f28a463cc503

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	108.8 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 3 via crossover

hypothesisBuilding on the same mass-reduction bet as b8c2956342ea, this cross pushed further by thinning both plate and arm together while also lengthening the arms.

methodPlate thickness cut more aggressively, arm thickness reduced to 4.0 mm, front sweep trimmed slightly, and arms lengthened.

resultInvalid: rotor too close to deck/battery, the same failure mode as candidate dea29e6b57ad. Longer arms keep tripping this clearance constraint whenever they aren't paired with more deck gap. Worth testing: repeat the thin-plate/thin-arm bet but hold arm length near the parent's baseline this time.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.06
arm width	×1.00
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.0 mm
front sweep	31.5°
rear sweep	38.6°
plate length	×1.17
plate width	×1.02
deck gap	28.7 mm
battery wedge	15.0°
plate thickness	×1.04
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate c3df5340dafd

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	153.0 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 3 via crossover

hypothesisThis cross tested a boxier, less-tapered waist with a near-flat battery wedge, betting that simplified geometry might trade a little mass for stability.

methodArm waist widened substantially (taper mostly removed), battery wedge flattened toward zero, plate thickness eased down slightly, and arms shortened a touch.

resultInvalid: rotor disks overlap on tip clearance. Widening the waist while also shortening the arms collapsed the prop-tip spacing below the safety margin. Worth testing: the same waist widening but only if paired with longer arms or more sweep to preserve tip clearance.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.97
arm width	×0.92
arm waist	×1.30
arm thickness	6.0 mm
front sweep	31.1°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.08
plate width	×1.08
deck gap	29.6 mm
battery wedge	0.9°
plate thickness	×0.95
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 3b919be0b361

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.733 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.812 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.842 Wh/km
frame mass	145.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 2 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the 9.621 parent with an unranked design while making only small, conservative tweaks to wedge angle, deck gap, and sweep bets that fine-tuning near a known-workable point is safer than the bigger jumps other candidates attempted this generation.

methodWidened the plate slightly, tilted the battery wedge up about 1.3°, tightened the deck gap by roughly 1mm, and nudged front sweep up less than a degree, keeping carbon-fiber plate.

resultValid and flew all six scenarios, scoring 9.733 Wh/km — slightly worse than its 9.621-fitness parent and well short of the 8.976 best-so-far, so not a new winner. Storm (7.81) and cold-headwind (7.84) dominate the score, pointing to drag or mass penalties under high-load conditions as the main weakness. Worth testing next: apply this same conservative tweak pattern starting from the actual 8.976 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	3.883	165.0	29.6°
cold_headwind	7.842	331.8	56.9°
crosswind	5.893	250.3	47.3°
gusty_light	5.283	224.4	58.0°
hot_thin	4.165	176.9	34.2°
storm	7.807	330.2	65.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.01
arm width	×0.99
arm waist	×1.01
arm thickness	6.0 mm
front sweep	32.1°
rear sweep	36.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.07
deck gap	29.1 mm
battery wedge	3.3°
plate thickness	×0.97
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 7c0193188737

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	90.2 g
material	asa
born	generation 2 via mutation

hypothesisThe lineage had been probing how far the plate could stretch to shave drag while easing the arm's pinched waist; this candidate doubles down, betting a longer, flatter deck plus a slightly relaxed waist buys efficiency without tipping into a geometry violation.

methodStretched the top plate about 6% longer than its already-elongated parent, and eased the arm's narrow waist point slightly wider.

resultInvalid — the extra plate length pushed the rotor disk into the deck/battery clearance zone, caught before any flight simulation ran. This shows plate stretching has a hard geometric ceiling tied to rotor position, not just a mass trade-off. Worth testing next: pair any further plate lengthening with increased front sweep to reopen rotor clearance.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.99
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.89
arm thickness	4.4 mm
front sweep	52.0°
rear sweep	34.9°
plate length	×1.18
plate width	×1.08
deck gap	23.0 mm
battery wedge	14.1°
plate thickness	×1.39
material	asa

parents

candidate 139ece990afb

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 1.35 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	92.4 g
material	petg
born	generation 2 via immigrant

hypothesisWith the population converging around a few lineages, an immigrant injects a wholly fresh random design to test whether unexplored regions of the fitness landscape might beat the incumbents.

methodA brand-new random genome: moderately longer and narrower arms, strongly asymmetric front/rear sweep, a shrunken plate, a wide deck gap, near-flat battery mounting, and PETG material.

resultInvalid — shrinking the plate without a compensating thickness increase left its structural web far too thin for PETG (1.35mm against a 1.90mm minimum). This is a clean lesson: immigrants that shrink plate length need a thickness bump to survive the wall check. Worth testing next: generate immigrants with plate thickness scaled inversely to plate length.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.08
arm width	×0.94
arm waist	×0.90
arm thickness	4.5 mm
front sweep	50.7°
rear sweep	53.5°
plate length	×0.85
plate width	×1.17
deck gap	36.3 mm
battery wedge	2.4°
plate thickness	×0.87
material	petg

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 3b5d3d95075e

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	104.6 g
material	petg
born	generation 2 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing an unranked design with one of the tied 8.976 leaders bets that inheriting the champion's compact plate and sweep balance, combined with a shorter arm, could shave further mass while keeping the champion's efficiency.

methodShortened the arms roughly 14% versus the more aggressive parent, tightened front sweep by about 1.5°, grew the plate slightly, and pulled the deck gap in a touch.

resultInvalid — same failure as the first candidate: the rotor ended up too close to the deck/battery stack. Shortening arms while keeping the plate long is a doubly bad combination for rotor clearance. Worth testing next: shrink arm length and plate length together rather than moving both toward 'more compact' independently.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×1.22
arm waist	×0.81
arm thickness	4.4 mm
front sweep	38.4°
rear sweep	44.9°
plate length	×1.22
plate width	×1.21
deck gap	26.6 mm
battery wedge	10.6°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	petg

parents

candidate 57eb346e158c

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.46 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	125.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 2 via crossover

hypothesisSelf-crossing a mid-pack (9.105) parent probes whether leaning harder into a wider, thinner-plated carbon layout can claw fitness back toward the champion tier through better stiffness-per-gram.

methodWidened the arms about 14%, narrowed the plate's width while pushing its thickness up substantially, and opened front sweep by a few degrees, keeping carbon-fiber plate.

resultInvalid — the plate's structural web collapsed to just 0.46mm against a 1.90mm requirement, a severe violation from combining reduced plate width with increased thickness. This suggests those two plate genes don't offset each other for web-thickness in carbon-fiber parts. Worth testing next: cap plate-width reduction below some threshold whenever plate thickness is also increased.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.08
arm width	×1.21
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.1 mm
front sweep	38.1°
rear sweep	37.3°
plate length	×1.16
plate width	×0.92
deck gap	28.9 mm
battery wedge	14.4°
plate thickness	×1.41
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate d724f214d49f

click to open the 3D model

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	146.7 g
material	asa
born	generation 2 via mutation

hypothesisOn an unranked, thick-armed ASA lineage, this candidate bets that opening the deck gap and lengthening the arms further will buy thermal and vibration margin in the harsher weather scenarios.

methodWidened the deck gap by about 3mm, opened front sweep by 2.5°, stretched the arms another 6%, and pulled rear sweep back slightly, keeping ASA with thick 8.3mm arms.

resultInvalid — the plate web again came in under spec (1.43mm vs 1.90mm required), the same failure class hitting several candidates this generation. This recurring pattern suggests plate thickness isn't scaling reliably when plate length and width grow together. Worth testing next: run a small isolated sweep on plate thickness alone to map exactly where the web constraint bites.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.15
arm width	×1.16
arm waist	×0.91
arm thickness	8.3 mm
front sweep	41.0°
rear sweep	49.0°
plate length	×1.19
plate width	×0.97
deck gap	35.8 mm
battery wedge	10.6°
plate thickness	×1.16
material	asa

parents

candidate 9d6d9dd8f4df

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pet_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	147.6 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 2 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing with the 9.621 parent while pulling the material toward a lighter PET-carbon blend tests whether a stiffer, longer-armed frame can undercut that parent's fitness through reduced weight without sacrificing rigidity.

methodShifted the material toward a PET-carbon-fiber blend, stretched both plate and arm length by roughly 15-20%, and widened the arms to match.

resultInvalid — the longer, wider arms in this material weren't stiff enough and exceeded the allowable tip deflection under load. This tells us the PET-CF blend needs shorter arms or reinforced waist geometry to survive this much length increase. Worth testing next: repeat the same length stretch but widen the arm waist instead of narrowing it, to add stiffness back.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.20
arm width	×1.23
arm waist	×0.76
arm thickness	5.1 mm
front sweep	42.5°
rear sweep	38.7°
plate length	×1.18
plate width	×1.22
deck gap	28.8 mm
battery wedge	7.7°
plate thickness	×1.53
material	pet_cf

parents

candidate 434494e6eb39

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	147.2 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 2 via crossover

hypothesisSelf-crossing the 9.621 parent explores whether trimming rear sweep while widening the plate can recover some of the fitness gap to the champion tier via a more compact rotor layout.

methodGrew the plate's length and width by about 7-8%, narrowed the arms slightly, and pulled rear sweep in by 2°, keeping carbon-fiber plate.

resultInvalid — the tighter rear sweep combined with the wider plate made the rotor disks overlap in their clearance envelope. Sweep and plate-width changes pull rotor spacing in opposite directions, and this candidate pushed both the wrong way together. Worth testing next: widen the plate but compensate with more rear sweep, not less, to preserve rotor tip clearance.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×0.93
arm waist	×1.00
arm thickness	6.0 mm
front sweep	31.4°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.08
plate width	×1.07
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	2.0°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate f9d6ecad5289

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for asa (1.4 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	103.4 g
material	asa
born	generation 2 via mutation

hypothesisComing off an unranked parent with long, thin, tapered arms, this candidate bets that trimming arm length back slightly while keeping the aggressive waist taper can rescue printability while retaining the parent's mass-saving intent.

methodShortened arm length slightly, narrowed the arm waist and width a bit further, and nudged rear sweep down less than a degree, keeping ASA with 7.1mm-thick arms.

resultInvalid — the plates ended up too thin for ASA's minimum wall requirement (1.4mm vs 1.6mm), independent of the arm tweaks that were the actual focus. The inherited plate-thickness/length combination simply wasn't compatible with ASA. Worth testing next: enforce an ASA-specific plate-thickness floor check before tuning arm genes on this lineage.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.23
arm width	×0.83
arm waist	×0.67
arm thickness	7.1 mm
front sweep	50.5°
rear sweep	56.9°
plate length	×0.87
plate width	×1.10
deck gap	43.4 mm
battery wedge	6.7°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	asa

parents

candidate 37be35aca762

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	110.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 2 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing directly with a tied-best (8.976) parent aims to preserve its winning proportions while testing whether trimming arm length and thickness can shave further mass without upsetting the champion's balance.

methodShortened the arms by about 14% and thinned them slightly, opened front sweep by 2.5°, and reduced plate thickness a bit, keeping carbon-fiber plate.

resultInvalid — shortening the arms while leaving plate length elevated again triggered the rotor-to-deck/battery clearance violation, the most common failure mode this generation. Champion-lineage crosses that shrink arm length look especially prone to this unless plate length shrinks in tandem. Worth testing next: scale plate length down proportionally whenever crossing with the 8.976 champion and reducing arm length.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.88
arm width	×0.97
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.1 mm
front sweep	35.6°
rear sweep	40.4°
plate length	×1.16
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	28.5 mm
battery wedge	14.7°
plate thickness	×1.26
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate e735f0a9f5ca

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	149.1 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 2 via mutation

hypothesisBuilding on an already long-armed, thick-plated parent, this candidate bets that a small composite-blend adjustment and a tighter plate width can improve stiffness-to-weight further while keeping the build compact.

methodNarrowed the plate slightly, nudged the composite material ratio, and increased plate thickness a touch more, leaving arm thickness and the already-tight deck gap unchanged.

resultInvalid — the deck gap was too small to fit the flight-controller/ESC stack, a packaging constraint the plate and material tweaks never addressed. Since the parent's deck gap was already tight, small width/thickness nudges couldn't fix the real bottleneck. Worth testing next: open the deck gap by several millimeters before retrying tweaks on this lineage.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.29
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×1.11
arm thickness	7.0 mm
front sweep	49.6°
rear sweep	45.2°
plate length	×0.91
plate width	×1.09
deck gap	21.7 mm
battery wedge	7.0°
plate thickness	×1.60
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate 560fc277c74f

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (asa)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	129.6 g
material	asa
born	generation 2 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two unranked parents while pushing further toward pure ASA and a much wider arm waist tests whether a bulkier, stiffer arm cross-section can support the longer arm length both parents favor.

methodWidened the arm waist substantially, stretched arm length further, tightened rear sweep, and pushed the material blend toward pure ASA.

resultInvalid — the arms deflected too much at the tip under load, meaning the longer arm length overwhelmed the stiffness gained from the wider waist. This is the second ASA arm-length deflection failure this generation, suggesting ASA has a fairly hard arm-length ceiling regardless of waist reinforcement. Worth testing next: identify and cap the arm-length multiplier for ASA below whatever value keeps deflection in bounds.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.24
arm width	×1.01
arm waist	×1.30
arm thickness	6.0 mm
front sweep	34.6°
rear sweep	34.0°
plate length	×1.20
plate width	×1.23
deck gap	30.3 mm
battery wedge	2.0°
plate thickness	×1.01
material	asa

parents

candidate 700314387508

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	123.6 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 2 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing the two tied 8.976 champions together bets that their shared strong traits combine cleanly, with a further-tightened arm waist and reduced deck gap trimming mass beyond what either parent achieved alone.

methodNarrowed the arm waist further, tightened the deck gap by about 2mm, and reduced plate thickness slightly, keeping the champions' carbon-fiber plate and sweep angles.

resultInvalid — even combining two winning parents, the tightened deck gap plus existing plate length pushed the rotor into the deck/battery zone. This is a cautionary result: the champion genome already sits close to the clearance boundary, so tightening deck gap further breaks it. Worth testing next: hold deck gap fixed at the champion's value and vary only plate or material genes when crossing the two 8.976 parents.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.02
arm width	×0.98
arm waist	×0.65
arm thickness	4.4 mm
front sweep	33.1°
rear sweep	38.7°
plate length	×1.16
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	26.7 mm
battery wedge	14.7°
plate thickness	×1.27
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate 50948185cb67

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	106.1 g
material	asa
born	generation 2 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing two unranked parents while lengthening and thickening the arms tests whether the added stiffness can support a bigger, more aggressively swept frame without needing to touch the deck gap.

methodStretched arm length by roughly 24%, thickened the arms, narrowed arm width slightly, and trimmed plate length a touch, using ASA.

resultInvalid — the deck gap inherited from the parents was too small for the FC/ESC stack, the same packaging failure seen in the e735f0a9f5ca candidate. Two independent lineages hitting this same wall suggests the deck-gap gene's viable range may need to be biased upward across the board. Worth testing next: raise the minimum deck-gap floor in the mutation/crossover operators so this constraint stops eating evaluation slots.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.23
arm width	×0.91
arm waist	×0.90
arm thickness	5.2 mm
front sweep	51.3°
rear sweep	34.3°
plate length	×1.09
plate width	×1.08
deck gap	21.8 mm
battery wedge	13.0°
plate thickness	×1.40
material	asa

parents

candidate 80419d0701cf

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.105 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.470 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.270 Wh/km
frame mass	125.5 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 1 via crossover

hypothesisWith f70bbea1c415 sitting at the generation's best fitness, this cross bets that borrowing wider arms and re-angled sweep from a second parent could shave more off the worst-case storm and cold-headwind scenarios.

methodWidened the arm slightly, narrowed the front/rear sweep spread (front up to 34.8°, rear down to 37.3°), and nudged the material blend a touch further toward the cf_plate side.

resultFitness 9.105 — worse than the champion parent (8.976) and not a new best-so-far. Cold-headwind (7.26) and storm (7.27) both came in high, suggesting the wider arm added drag/mass in exactly the adverse scenarios it was meant to help. Worth testing next: isolate the sweep-angle change alone, keeping arm width at the parent's original ×0.98, to see if sweep 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	3.735	158.7	29.3°
cold_headwind	7.255	307.8	56.3°
crosswind	5.568	236.6	46.5°
gusty_light	4.992	212.1	56.5°
hot_thin	3.999	169.9	33.7°
storm	7.270	308.3	65.4°

gene	value
arm length	×1.03
arm width	×1.06
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	4.4 mm
front sweep	34.8°
rear sweep	37.3°
plate length	×1.16
plate width	×1.01
deck gap	28.9 mm
battery wedge	14.4°
plate thickness	×1.30
material	cf_plate

parents

candidate baac55fb3837new best when evaluated

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	9.621 Wh/km
scenario mean	5.752 Wh/km
worst scenario	7.739 Wh/km
frame mass	144.3 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 0 via seed

hypothesisAs the very first candidate evaluated in generation 0, with no prior flight data to react to, this run establishes a near-stock baseline geometry to anchor the population before the search pushes toward more extreme variants.

methodUses essentially stock Source One V6 proportions (arm length/width/waist all ×1.00) with a modest 6.0mm arm thickness, stock-like plate size, and a shallow 2° battery wedge, in carbon-fiber plate stock.

resultScored 9.621 Wh/km and, being the first valid design evaluated, automatically became best-so-far (NEW WINNER by default). Storm (7.7) and cold headwind (7.74) dominate the loss, suggesting stock geometry isn't tuned for high-drag conditions. Worth testing thinner or narrower-waisted arms to cut wind-drag losses in those two scenarios.

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	29.5°
cold_headwind	7.739	327.6	56.7°
crosswind	5.836	247.9	47.1°
gusty_light	5.230	222.2	57.6°
hot_thin	4.142	176.0	34.0°
storm	7.704	326.0	65.2°

gene	value
arm length	×1.00
arm width	×1.00
arm waist	×1.00
arm thickness	6.0 mm
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 8feb4b8b4942

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	92.8 g
material	asa
born	generation 1 via crossover

hypothesisOne parent ran unusually narrow through the arms and waist; blending it with a stockier co-parent bet that widening the arm cross-section and plate footprint could buy stiffness without much mass penalty.

methodWidened arm width and waist back toward the wider parent's values, bumped plate width up further, and shifted the material blend more toward ASA.

resultInvalid: rotor too close to deck/battery. The combination of a wider plate and a hefty plate-thickness multiplier evidently ate into rotor clearance. Worth testing next: repeat this blend but raise the deck gap by a few millimeters to compensate for the bulkier plate stack.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.99
arm width	×0.96
arm waist	×0.99
arm thickness	4.5 mm
front sweep	52.0°
rear sweep	34.9°
plate length	×1.11
plate width	×1.12
deck gap	23.0 mm
battery wedge	12.9°
plate thickness	×1.36
material	asa

parents

candidate faac948f70a8

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	152.4 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 1 via immigrant

hypothesisAn immigrant injected to escape the plateau forming around the 8.976 champion, betting that a longer, thicker-walled arm in a stiff pa12_cf composite could open a fundamentally different structural path.

methodFresh random draw: long 7.0mm-thick arms, elongated waist taper, shorter/wider plates, and a shallow deck gap paired with heavy plate thickness in pa12_cf.

resultInvalid: deck gap too small for the FC/ESC stack. This is already the pattern for random immigrants this generation — draws below roughly 22-23mm keep failing outright regardless of the rest of the design. Worth testing next: resample this exact arm/material combo with deck gap forced above 25mm.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.29
arm width	×0.90
arm waist	×1.11
arm thickness	7.0 mm
front sweep	49.6°
rear sweep	45.2°
plate length	×0.91
plate width	×1.18
deck gap	21.7 mm
battery wedge	7.0°
plate thickness	×1.58
material	pa12_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate e8e2e9c8a597

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	88.5 g
material	asa
born	generation 1 via mutation

hypothesisThe parent already sat near a tight geometric boundary; this mutation makes a minimal, low-risk tweak to material and wedge angle, hoping small changes could still extract improvement without touching risky geometry.

methodNudged the material blend slightly more ASA-leaning and increased battery wedge by 0.2°, leaving all arm and plate geometry untouched.

resultInvalid: still fails on the same too-small deck gap as the parent, since neither mutated gene touched deck gap at all. This shows the parent lineage was likely already unviable, and mutating unrelated genes can't rescue a structurally doomed layout. Worth testing next: mutate deck gap directly on this lineage instead of material or wedge angle.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.99
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.90
arm thickness	4.4 mm
front sweep	51.2°
rear sweep	35.0°
plate length	×1.11
plate width	×1.09
deck gap	21.8 mm
battery wedge	13.3°
plate thickness	×1.41
material	asa

parents

candidate 80b8f1f7895c

click to open the 3D model

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	142.4 g
material	asa
born	generation 1 via immigrant

hypothesisAn immigrant probing a stockier design — wide and very thick arms with a roomy deck gap — betting that bulk could survive adverse-weather stress better than the champion's slender geometry.

methodFresh random draw: wide, 8.3mm-thick arms, elongated plates, a generous deck gap, and only a moderate plate thickness multiplier in ASA.

resultInvalid: plate web came out too thin (1.43mm vs a 1.90mm stock minimum) despite the thickness multiplier being over 1.0. Stretched plate length/width apparently outpaced the multiplier's ability to keep absolute wall thickness safe. Worth testing next: when plate length/width are pushed outward this much, scale plate thickness multiplier well above 1.3 to compensate.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.09
arm width	×1.21
arm waist	×0.91
arm thickness	8.3 mm
front sweep	38.5°
rear sweep	51.4°
plate length	×1.19
plate width	×0.97
deck gap	32.6 mm
battery wedge	10.6°
plate thickness	×1.10
material	asa

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 3dc7b5e22c2d

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	155.9 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 1 via immigrant

hypothesisAn immigrant betting on a compact, heavily swept-back layout in a premium composite, aiming to cut drag in crosswind and storm conditions through an unconventional shape.

methodFresh random draw: shorter, wide-waisted arms, an aggressive 61° rear sweep, large plates, and thick pet_cf construction, paired with a shallow deck gap.

resultInvalid: deck gap too small for the FC/ESC stack, the third such failure this generation. The pattern is now clear — random sampling keeps drawing deck gaps below roughly 22mm and dying on the same constraint before its other design ideas can even be evaluated. Worth testing next: raise the immigrant sampler's minimum deck-gap bound so promising geometry isn't wasted on a known dead end.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.85
arm width	×1.10
arm waist	×0.64
arm thickness	7.6 mm
front sweep	46.8°
rear sweep	61.0°
plate length	×1.26
plate width	×1.20
deck gap	20.2 mm
battery wedge	14.9°
plate thickness	×1.50
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 38468bac9377

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (petg)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	112.2 g
material	petg
born	generation 1 via immigrant

hypothesisAn immigrant testing whether a large, wide-plate frame in a cheaper, more flexible material could still hold up structurally on geometry alone, without a reinforced composite.

methodFresh random draw: long, wide arms with thin 4.4mm walls, large plates, and plain PETG instead of a reinforced blend.

resultInvalid: arm tip deflection failure. PETG's lower stiffness combined with the thin wall couldn't resist bending under load, regardless of the extra width. This confirms PETG needs meaningfully thicker walls than composite blends to pass deflection checks. Worth testing next: rerun this same geometry with arm thickness raised to 6mm or more, or swap to a stiffer composite.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.10
arm width	×1.21
arm waist	×0.83
arm thickness	4.4 mm
front sweep	40.0°
rear sweep	44.9°
plate length	×1.25
plate width	×1.21
deck gap	27.4 mm
battery wedge	11.0°
plate thickness	×1.01
material	petg

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 2a64ae74d8da

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for pla_plus (1.4 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	120.7 g
material	pla_plus
born	generation 1 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing toward a notably weaker parent (fitness 10.802), this candidate bets that shifting the material blend toward a lighter, plain thermoplastic could cut mass without giving up too much structural margin.

methodMoved the material blend substantially toward pla_plus while keeping plate length and front sweep almost unchanged, inheriting a thin plate-thickness multiplier from the donor.

resultInvalid: plates too thin for pla_plus (1.4mm vs a 1.6mm floor). Plain thermoplastics need thicker walls than composites, and this crossover inherited a thickness multiplier tuned for a stronger material. Worth testing next: whenever crossover shifts material toward a plain thermoplastic, force plate thickness up to that material's minimum floor.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.92
arm width	×1.25
arm waist	×0.80
arm thickness	7.2 mm
front sweep	41.5°
rear sweep	40.2°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×1.17
deck gap	24.8 mm
battery wedge	10.7°
plate thickness	×0.70
material	pla_plus

parents

candidate 71bf0ebec7ad

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	88.2 g
material	asa
born	generation 1 via crossover

hypothesisThe base parent kept failing on too-tight deck gap elsewhere in this generation; this cross pulls in a mid-performing parent's genes specifically hoping a wider deck gap would finally clear the FC/ESC constraint while keeping the efficient overall shape.

methodPushed material fully to ASA, widened the deck gap from 21.8mm to 23.0mm, and slightly increased battery wedge and front sweep.

resultInvalid, but on a different constraint than the parent — rotor too close to deck/battery rather than deck-gap-too-small — showing the gap fix worked but exposed a secondary clearance problem, likely from the heavy plate thickness and battery wedge eating into rotor space. Worth testing next: keep the widened deck gap but lower plate thickness or battery wedge angle to recover rotor clearance too.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.99
arm width	×0.85
arm waist	×0.91
arm thickness	4.4 mm
front sweep	52.0°
rear sweep	34.9°
plate length	×1.11
plate width	×1.08
deck gap	23.0 mm
battery wedge	14.1°
plate thickness	×1.39
material	asa

parents

candidate 1282c6fc1d76

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for asa (1.6 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	110.2 g
material	asa
born	generation 1 via crossover

hypothesisTwo unproven crossover parents combine here, betting that reversing the sweep balance — less front sweep, more rear sweep — plus slightly thicker arm walls could improve stability in gusty and stormy scenarios.

methodSwept the front angle back from 41.1° to 34.7°, pushed rear sweep out to 44.3°, and nudged plate and arm thickness up slightly.

resultInvalid: plate thickness landed exactly at the 1.6mm ASA floor and failed the strict minimum by a hair. This is an extremely marginal miss showing this design family sits right on the viability boundary, meaning the underlying sweep-angle idea was never actually tested. Worth testing next: bump the plate thickness multiplier by just one notch to clear the floor with margin and let the sweep change be evaluated properly.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.94
arm width	×1.22
arm waist	×0.78
arm thickness	7.4 mm
front sweep	34.7°
rear sweep	44.3°
plate length	×1.03
plate width	×1.17
deck gap	25.0 mm
battery wedge	10.7°
plate thickness	×0.79
material	asa

parents

candidate 36dd751eaf4b

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	126.3 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 1 via crossover

hypothesisBlending two unproven parents, this candidate bets that a slightly narrower arm paired with a more pa12_cf-leaning material blend could balance stiffness and mass better than either parent alone.

methodNarrowed arm width slightly, shifted the material blend a touch further toward pa12_cf, and made minor adjustments to rear sweep and plate length.

resultInvalid: rotor too close to deck/battery, the same clearance failure seen repeatedly this generation — here likely driven by a heavy plate thickness multiplier combined with a modest deck gap and shallow battery wedge. This is now the third rotor-clearance failure of the generation, pointing to thick-plate-plus-shallow-wedge as a systematic trap. Worth testing next: cap plate thickness below roughly 1.4x whenever deck gap is under 28mm.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.06
arm width	×1.12
arm waist	×0.75
arm thickness	5.7 mm
front sweep	41.9°
rear sweep	35.8°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.21
deck gap	26.6 mm
battery wedge	7.5°
plate thickness	×1.56
material	pa12_cf

parents

candidate c93807a57cc1

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (asa)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	127.2 g
material	asa
born	generation 1 via crossover

hypothesisCrossing toward a weaker-performing parent (fitness 10.802), this candidate bets that substantially lengthening the arms and widening the waist and plates could improve rotor spacing and stability despite the donor's past underperformance.

methodLengthened arms notably, widened the arm waist, and enlarged plate length and width well beyond the stronger parent's values.

resultInvalid: arm tip deflection in ASA. Stretching arm length while only modestly thickening the wall pushed bending past the stiffness limit, worsened by the wider waist reducing the effective stiff cross-section. Worth testing next: retry this longer-arm, wider-plate layout with arm thickness raised toward 7mm or more to compensate for the added length.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.17
arm width	×1.14
arm waist	×1.30
arm thickness	5.9 mm
front sweep	33.9°
rear sweep	38.8°
plate length	×1.20
plate width	×1.24
deck gap	32.0 mm
battery wedge	2.2°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	asa

parents

candidate 9222fa935c86

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for asa (1.4 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	101.0 g
material	asa
born	generation 1 via immigrant

hypothesisAn immigrant exploring an extreme-length, narrow-arm layout with a very generous deck gap, betting that slender long arms could cut drag in headwind and storm scenarios despite the added length.

methodFresh random draw: long but narrow and heavily tapered arms, a shrunk plate length, a very large deck gap, and a thin plate-thickness multiplier in ASA.

resultInvalid: plates too thin for ASA (1.4mm vs a 1.6mm floor), the same material-floor failure seen elsewhere this generation. The interesting slender-arm, big-gap concept never got evaluated because plate thickness was sampled too low for the material. Worth testing next: rerun this narrow-arm, big-deck-gap idea with plate thickness raised to at least 0.9x to clear the ASA floor.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.32
arm width	×0.76
arm waist	×0.58
arm thickness	7.1 mm
front sweep	50.5°
rear sweep	57.3°
plate length	×0.87
plate width	×1.10
deck gap	43.1 mm
battery wedge	6.7°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	asa

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate ca4cabad261c

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
energy score	10.802 Wh/km
scenario mean	6.448 Wh/km
worst scenario	8.707 Wh/km
frame mass	161.7 g
material	pa12_cf
born	generation 0 via seed

hypothesisBets that longer, slimmer arms plus a beefed-up plate stack and a tilted battery could reduce prop-wash interference and improve mass balance for crosswind and gust stability.

methodStretches arm length 22% while narrowing width and waist, thickens arms to 8.3mm, enlarges plates about 1.2x with 55% thicker plate stock in pa12_cf, widens the deck gap, and tilts the battery 11.5°.

resultCame in worse than the baseline seed at 10.802 vs 9.621, so it did not become best-so-far. The heavier plate stack and larger frame likely added mass and drag across every scenario, especially storm (8.68) and cold headwind (8.71). Next worth testing: keep the longer arm but drop plate thickness and frame size back toward baseline.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

scenario results & genome

scenario	wh/km	avg power, w	max tilt
calm_warm	4.187	177.9	30.5°
cold_headwind	8.707	365.2	58.2°
crosswind	6.771	287.7	51.3°
gusty_light	5.883	249.8	60.4°
hot_thin	4.466	189.7	35.5°
storm	8.675	364.8	63.1°

gene	value
arm length	×1.22
arm width	×0.86
arm waist	×0.77
arm thickness	8.3 mm
front sweep	37.5°
rear sweep	36.9°
plate length	×1.21
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	40.4 mm
battery wedge	11.5°
plate thickness	×1.55
material	pa12_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 65692b643689

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.34 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	106.4 g
material	asa
born	generation 0 via seed

hypothesisExplores wider, waisted arms with a steep rear sweep angle to test whether asymmetric sweep could help handle crosswind loads while trimming plate mass.

methodWidens arm width and narrows the waist, pushes rear sweep to about 60°, and thins the plate stock in asa material.

resultInvalid — the thinned plate combined with asa's lower stiffness left the main plate web at 0.34mm, far below the 1.90mm structural minimum, so it never flew. This shows asa needs a much higher plate-thickness floor than other materials. Next: retest similar geometry with plate thickness at or above stock, or switch to a stiffer material like cf_plate.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.06
arm width	×1.17
arm waist	×0.78
arm thickness	6.2 mm
front sweep	39.6°
rear sweep	60.3°
plate length	×1.25
plate width	×0.91
deck gap	44.6 mm
battery wedge	7.3°
plate thickness	×0.89
material	asa

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate e59dae70276c

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	160.2 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 0 via seed

hypothesisTests a compact, shortened-arm frame with thick arms and a tight deck gap to see if a denser, lower-drag airframe pays off despite reduced internal clearance.

methodShrinks arm length while thickening arms to 9.0mm, enlarges the plates, but shrinks the deck gap to about 20mm in pet_cf.

resultInvalid — the tightened deck gap didn't leave enough room for the FC/ESC stack, so the design was rejected before flight. This confirms deck gap has a hard floor around the low-20s of millimeters regardless of how attractive the rest of the geometry looks. Next: repeat this compact layout with deck gap raised to at least 25mm.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.78
arm width	×0.91
arm waist	×1.09
arm thickness	9.0 mm
front sweep	42.2°
rear sweep	37.7°
plate length	×1.28
plate width	×1.17
deck gap	20.4 mm
battery wedge	3.7°
plate thickness	×1.12
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 9d755312c2b4

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor disks overlap (tip clearance)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	141.0 g
material	pla_plus
born	generation 0 via seed

hypothesisBets that flaring arm width on a shortened frame could stiffen the airframe cheaply in lightweight material without adding much arm thickness.

methodShortens arm length while widening the arms, keeps waist near stock, uses a tight deck gap and near-zero battery wedge, in pla_plus.

resultInvalid — the shortened arm length combined with near-stock sweep angles brought the rotor disks close enough to overlap in tip clearance, an automatic reject. This shows arm-length shrinkage needs a compensating sweep-angle increase to keep prop tips apart. Next: retest this compact/wide-arm bet with front sweep pushed higher for extra tip clearance.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.82
arm width	×1.17
arm waist	×0.95
arm thickness	8.2 mm
front sweep	35.0°
rear sweep	37.2°
plate length	×0.94
plate width	×1.24
deck gap	22.8 mm
battery wedge	0.7°
plate thickness	×1.16
material	pla_plus

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate e7db1298e21b

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plates too thin for asa (1.4 < 1.6 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	104.9 g
material	asa
born	generation 0 via seed

hypothesisTests whether flared arm width and a steep battery tilt could improve center-of-mass balance in adverse wind scenarios, using a lighter plate stack to save weight.

methodWidens the arms, narrows the waist, keeps moderate thickness, thins the plate stock in asa, and tilts the battery about 11°.

resultInvalid — plate thickness came out to 1.4mm, below asa's 1.6mm minimum, rejecting the design before flight. Combined with 65692b643689's failure, this is the second asa design killed by an under-thick plate, reinforcing that asa needs a much higher plate-thickness multiplier. Next: retry this arm/battery-wedge geometry with plate thickness at or above stock, or in a stiffer material.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.92
arm width	×1.24
arm waist	×0.80
arm thickness	7.1 mm
front sweep	41.1°
rear sweep	40.1°
plate length	×1.02
plate width	×1.17
deck gap	24.8 mm
battery wedge	10.7°
plate thickness	×0.71
material	asa

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate ad5b5018de16

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	113.9 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 0 via seed

hypothesisExplores a compact, thin-armed frame with an aggressive rear sweep and steep battery wedge, betting that light arms plus a big plate footprint could still be structurally and geometrically viable.

methodShrinks arm length/width/waist and thins arms to 4.4mm, sweeps the rear arm to nearly 56°, and enlarges the plates with much thicker plate stock, in pet_cf.

resultInvalid — the extreme rear sweep combined with the shrunk arm waist pulled the arm tongue mounting bolts off the edge of the enlarged main plate, a geometric mismatch rather than a strength failure. This shows steep sweep angles need matching plate-footprint growth to keep bolt patterns aligned. Next: retest this thin-arm bet with rear sweep capped nearer 40° or plate width grown further to catch the bolt pattern.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.88
arm width	×0.77
arm waist	×0.75
arm thickness	4.4 mm
front sweep	32.0°
rear sweep	55.8°
plate length	×1.26
plate width	×1.11
deck gap	28.0 mm
battery wedge	14.6°
plate thickness	×1.58
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate a756a382d959

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	115.1 g
material	pla_plus
born	generation 0 via seed

hypothesisBets that a very narrow arm waist paired with a wide, steeply-swept rear arm could shave drag while keeping the frame light.

methodWidens the arm, narrows the waist sharply, sweeps the rear arm to about 53°, and enlarges the plates, in pla_plus.

resultInvalid — same failure mode as ad5b5018de16: the narrow waist plus steep rear sweep moved the arm tongue bolt holes off the main plate. Two independent seeds hitting this exact constraint suggests narrow waist combined with steep rear sweep is a reliably infeasible combination. Next: avoid pairing narrow waist with steep sweep — test narrow waist with rear sweep held near stock instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.93
arm width	×1.28
arm waist	×0.57
arm thickness	6.0 mm
front sweep	36.3°
rear sweep	52.5°
plate length	×1.13
plate width	×1.22
deck gap	35.1 mm
battery wedge	8.9°
plate thickness	×0.95
material	pla_plus

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 366fc341ba4b

click to open the 3D model

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	190.8 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 0 via seed

hypothesisTests whether a longer, wider, thick-armed frame with aggressive dual sweep could improve gust handling through better mass distribution.

methodLengthens and widens the arms, thickens them to 9.0mm, sweeps front and rear to roughly 46°/54°, and thickens the plate stock in pet_cf.

resultInvalid — despite the heavier plate multiplier, the plate_main web came out to just 0.32mm versus the 1.90mm requirement, meaning thickness scaling didn't translate into web strength at this arm geometry. This hints web thickness depends more on arm-waist/plate interaction than the raw plate-thickness setting alone. Next: investigate how arm waist ratio affects web thickness independent of the plate_thickness gene, and retest with a less extreme waist.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.10
arm width	×1.17
arm waist	×1.00
arm thickness	9.0 mm
front sweep	45.6°
rear sweep	54.4°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×0.91
deck gap	25.6 mm
battery wedge	10.6°
plate thickness	×1.57
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 5bd883a787bb

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — rotor too close to deck/battery
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	172.1 g
material	cf_plate
born	generation 0 via seed

hypothesisExplores wide, slightly swept arms with a thick plate stack to test if a beefed-up cf_plate frame could handle storm loads better than a thin-arm design.

methodWidens the arms, narrows the waist, keeps moderate thickness, sweeps the front arm to about 42°, and thickens the plates substantially in cf_plate.

resultInvalid — the plate thickening pushed the deck too close to the rotor plane and battery, tripping the clearance check. This shows that once plate thickness climbs high enough, deck-to-rotor clearance becomes the binding constraint rather than plate strength. Next: retest this wide-arm cf_plate bet with plate thickness capped lower to preserve rotor clearance.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.06
arm width	×1.16
arm waist	×0.75
arm thickness	5.7 mm
front sweep	41.9°
rear sweep	35.2°
plate length	×1.08
plate width	×1.21
deck gap	26.9 mm
battery wedge	7.5°
plate thickness	×1.55
material	cf_plate

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 8133cd24dc85

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — deck gap too small for FC/ESC stack
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	104.2 g
material	petg
born	generation 0 via seed

hypothesisBets that a steep front sweep paired with narrower arms could reduce frontal drag in headwind and crosswind scenarios, using petg for a middle-ground stiffness/weight tradeoff.

methodNarrows and thins the arms to 4.4mm, sweeps the front arm sharply past 51°, uses a tight deck gap, and a steep battery wedge, in petg.

resultInvalid — the deck gap was again too tight for the FC/ESC stack, matching the same failure as e59dae70276c. This is the second deck-gap rejection in this generation, confirming a firm practical floor regardless of material. Next: keep the steep front-sweep bet but raise deck gap well above the failed value.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.99
arm width	×0.84
arm waist	×0.90
arm thickness	4.4 mm
front sweep	51.2°
rear sweep	35.0°
plate length	×1.11
plate width	×1.09
deck gap	21.8 mm
battery wedge	13.1°
plate thickness	×1.41
material	petg

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 2fad8ee13f1c

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — plate web too thin (plate_main 0.56 mm, stock 1.90 mm)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	115.2 g
material	asa
born	generation 0 via seed

hypothesisTests a long-arm, wide-waisted frame with steep dual sweep in asa, betting length and sweep together could improve efficiency across scenarios.

methodLengthens the arms, widens the waist, thins the arms to 5.5mm, sweeps front and rear to roughly 44°/58°, and keeps plate thickness near stock, in asa.

resultInvalid — the plate_main web came out to 0.56mm against the 1.90mm requirement, another plate-web failure despite a near-stock plate multiplier. Combined with 366fc341ba4b, this suggests wide arm-waist ratios erode web thickness even when the plate_thickness gene itself looks reasonable. Next: test whether keeping arm waist near stock while pursuing the long-arm/steep-sweep bet avoids the web failure.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.28
arm width	×1.03
arm waist	×1.29
arm thickness	5.5 mm
front sweep	43.8°
rear sweep	57.7°
plate length	×1.08
plate width	×0.92
deck gap	35.8 mm
battery wedge	7.5°
plate thickness	×1.03
material	asa

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate dfb072237e0b

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tongue bolts miss the main plate
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	79.1 g
material	asa
born	generation 0 via seed

hypothesisExplores a short, wide-armed frame with steep dual sweep and a narrow waist, betting the combination could cut both drag and mass in asa.

methodShortens and widens the arms, narrows the waist, thins them to 4.2mm, sweeps front and rear to roughly 50°/52°, and keeps the plate footprint near stock, in asa.

resultInvalid — a third instance of arm tongue bolts missing the main plate, again from the narrow-waist-plus-steep-sweep pattern seen in ad5b5018de16 and a756a382d959. With three independent failures on this exact combination, narrow waist paired with steep sweep should be treated as an out-of-bounds region entirely. Next: exclude that combination from future sampling and focus narrow-waist bets on near-stock sweep angles instead.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.83
arm width	×1.26
arm waist	×0.63
arm thickness	4.2 mm
front sweep	49.8°
rear sweep	52.0°
plate length	×1.07
plate width	×1.14
deck gap	31.8 mm
battery wedge	2.1°
plate thickness	×1.14
material	asa

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate bd035022cf25✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (pet_cf)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	102.3 g
material	pet_cf
born	generation 0 via designer

hypothesisA deliberately designed bet, rather than random sampling, that stretching the arm length while narrowing width and waist and switching to pet_cf could lengthen the moment arm for efficiency without hitting the plate-web or bolt-alignment failures seen in the random seeds.

methodLengthens the arms 25%, narrows width and waist, keeps a moderate 5.5mm thickness, uses a near-stock plate footprint and a 12° battery wedge, in pet_cf.

resultInvalid — the long, narrow arm at only 5.5mm thickness deflected too much under load for pet_cf's stiffness, an arm tip deflection failure. This is a different failure mode than the random seeds hit (structural rather than geometric), showing pet_cf can't support this length-to-thickness ratio. Next: retest the same long-arm concept with thickness raised toward 7-8mm or in a stiffer material like cf_plate.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×1.25
arm width	×0.80
arm waist	×0.65
arm thickness	5.5 mm
front sweep	36.0°
rear sweep	42.0°
plate length	×1.00
plate width	×0.98
deck gap	26.0 mm
battery wedge	12.0°
plate thickness	×0.85
material	pet_cf

no parents

seed / immigrant

candidate 3aa66c714db3✦ claude-designed

click to open the 3D model

metric	value
status	invalid — arm tip deflection (asa)
energy score	∞ (never flew the scenarios)
frame mass	97.6 g
material	asa
born	generation 0 via designer

hypothesisA conservative, near-baseline designer bet — small tweaks around the seed geometry in asa to test whether a cheaper or more available material could match cf_plate performance without redesigning the frame.

methodNudges arm length and waist slightly below stock, keeps width and thickness near baseline at 6.0mm, enlarges plates modestly, and switches material to asa instead of cf_plate.

resultInvalid — even at near-baseline geometry, the 6.0mm arm still deflected too much under load once the material switched to asa, which is markedly less stiff than cf_plate. This confirms asa cannot directly substitute for cf_plate at the same arm thickness. Next: repeat this same near-baseline geometry in asa but with arm thickness raised toward 8-9mm to compensate for the lower modulus.

notes by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, claude-sonnet-5

genome

gene	value
arm length	×0.95
arm width	×1.00
arm waist	×0.95
arm thickness	6.0 mm
front sweep	34.0°
rear sweep	39.0°
plate length	×1.05
plate width	×1.05
deck gap	30.0 mm
battery wedge	2.0°
plate thickness	×1.00
material	asa

no parents

seed / immigrant

drag to rotate · ⌘-drag pans · scroll to zoom · double-click resets · esc closes

only the evolved parts (deck + arms) are shown · fixed kit hidden

oldest ancestor

this candidate

evolved parts only · the two models rotate and zoom in sync

net change solid color = this candidate · gray ghost = oldest ancestor · fixed kit hidden

only the parts evolution changes are shown, superimposed

lineage trail solid color = this candidate · gray ghosts = 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

Airloom — run run_20260713_230656

the game board

bolted down — the fixed kit

hard constraints (fitness = ∞, no flight)

the levers — 12 genes

the weather — every candidate flies all of it

generation 28

generation 27

generation 26

generation 25

generation 24

generation 23

generation 22

generation 21

generation 20

generation 19

generation 18

generation 17

generation 16

generation 15

generation 14

generation 13

generation 12

generation 11

generation 10

generation 9

generation 8

generation 7

generation 6

generation 5

generation 4

generation 3

generation 2

generation 1

generation 0

candidate details & parentage

Airloom — run `run_20260713_230656`