mirror of
https://github.com/ruvnet/RuView.git
synced 2026-10-22 14:42:44 -05:00
Joeandclaude-flow
51102b3baf
Records why device-free position kept failing here, measured rather than argued, and the join key built in response. The implementing PRs land without this and are harder to read for it. **Phase is unusable on this hardware.** The bistatic tier needed a signed per-link radial velocity, which requires the common-mode component of CSI phase. Measured across three ESP32-C6 nodes over ~40,000 frames, the frame-to-frame change in common-mode phase is statistically indistinguishable from uniform random: resultant length R = 0.011-0.032 against a 0.000 reference, sd 1.78-1.81 against pi/sqrt(3) = 1.814, no lag-1 autocorrelation. A second, unwrap-free estimator agreed. The mechanism is packet-detection timing quantization. Common-mode phase is -2*pi*f_c*tau, and one ADC sample of jitter at 20 MHz is about 758 rad -- some 120 full wraps, re-randomized every packet. Not calibratable. The bistatic tier is default-off as a result. **Amplitude works but had no parallax.** The three AP->node links leave a single distant transmitter inside a 36.5 degree fan; scalar per-node energy weighting closed with a clean negative result -- magnitude responds to proximity, direction does not. What follows from both: a position tier needs several transmitters seen from several receivers, and fusing those requires knowing that two nodes observed the SAME transmission. Arrival timestamps cannot say so -- the sink sees network jitter, not capture time -- and the per-node sequence counter is private to each node. Hence (tx_mac, rx_seq): the 802.11 sequence control field is assigned by the transmitter and is identical at every receiver, so it names one transmission without any coordination between receivers, no shared clock and no negotiation. Status is Proposed, deliberately. The measurement layer is implemented and validated on hardware; localization is NOT built, and the ADR says so along with the rest of its known limitations -- peer links are ~10x weaker than data frames, three links is below the threshold for tomographic localization regardless of quality, and no position tier consumes the link table. References only ADR-018, ADR-060 and ADR-110, all already present here. Co-Authored-By: claude-flow <ruv@ruv.net> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BHNNWbmKvxXrVaEDwXEBNo