Imagine you're training a new line cook. The first week, the head chef watches every plate. By week three, she only checks the sauces — the ones that went wrong before. She doesn't retrain the cook; she just stops hovering where he's proven reliable. FastHarness applies exactly this logic to agentic robot systems: instead of having a heavyweight vision-language model review every action chunk a robot policy proposes, it builds a memory of which stages went smoothly and only calls in the reviewer when the situation is novel or resembles a past failure. The committed claim: an experience-driven scheduling layer over a frozen π0.5 policy and GPT-6 Astra reviewer achieves 97.19% mean success across four simulated manipulation tasks — up from 80% for the naive 'review everything' baseline — while cutting reviewer token consumption by 57.2% and episode time from 85.5 to 52.0 minutes. No additional model training required. Architecturally, FastHarness sits between the robot policy (π0.5, a vision-language-action model) and the LLM reviewer (GPT-6 Astra). It maintains a stage memory that tracks reviewed outcomes per task stage. A fast path suppresses reviews when accumulated positive experience exceeds a confidence threshold; a recovery path concentrates supervision on stages where failures have occurred. Once recovery is verified, the system returns to the fast path. The policy itself remains frozen — it always generates fresh actions from current observations. This is a scheduling and memory wrapper, not a new architecture for either the policy or the reviewer. The ladder question is instructive. The paper's own baseline is GPT-as-Policy: the same π0.5 + GPT-6 Astra stack but with the reviewer called on every action chunk. That baseline hits 80% success. FastHarness lifts this to 97.19%. But there's no comparison against other adaptive supervision methods (e.g., uncertainty-based gating, learned confidence heads, or classical anomaly-detection triggers). The baseline is internally consistent but narrow. Whether 80% is strong or weak for these four simulated tasks is hard to judge without external benchmarks. Integrity has clear strengths and gaps. The evaluation is simulation-only (four manipulation tasks), and the improvement metrics — 57.2% token reduction, 85.5→52.0 minute episode time, 80%→97.19% success — are all self-reported on self-selected tasks. Code is released on GitHub, which is a genuine plus. But there's no pre-registration, no community benchmark, and no physical robot validation. The 'first evaluated episode to mean of final five' framing for the efficiency gains is a reasonable learning-curve metric but could flatter the system if early episodes are deliberately unoptimized. The milestone that matters here is not a single number but a threshold: can adaptive supervision hold up on physical hardware, with real sensor noise, latency spikes, and out-of-distribution objects? Sim-to-real transfer is the gap. The paper demonstrates the scheduling concept works in simulation; the field needs to see whether stage memory generalizes when the policy's error modes are messier and less repeatable than in sim. The obvious experiment not run: physical robot evaluation. The authors almost certainly know this is the next step. The honest read is (a) — real-robot experiments are expensive and slow, and the conceptual contribution (adaptive scheduling) is cleanly demonstrated in sim. They're likely saving hardware validation for a follow-up or a conference demo. A secondary gap: no ablation comparing FastHarness against simpler heuristics (e.g., fixed decay schedules, random sampling of review calls) to isolate how much of the gain comes from the experience-driven logic versus simply reviewing less often.
