Imagine you're a swim coach who has read 14 different books on training progressions — some say start with butterfly, some say randomize drills, some say let an AI pick the workout. You've only ever tested these plans on one body type in one pool. Now you finally run them all on five different swimmers with different builds, in the same pool, same yardage budget. The result: no book works for every swimmer, and the ones that just say 'start easy' do embarrassingly well. That is the core mechanism of this paper. The authors take fourteen unsupervised environment design (UED) methods — PLR, ACCEL, SFL, PAIRED, and ten others drawn from both the UED and legged-robotics literatures — and run them under a single evaluation protocol on five 3D quadrupeds in MuJoCo MJX. The robots span closed-chain (W01-TEK) and open-chain (Unitree Go1, Go2, Google Barkour vB, Boston Dynamics Spot) designs. Levels are parameterized as eight interpretable terrain features, and every curriculum drives the same PPO student with matched environment-step budgets. The committed claim: there is no universal winner, and methods that simply feed the agent easy or low-difficulty levels fill the top statistical groups more often than the sophisticated adaptive curricula that UED papers promote. The ladder positioning is what makes this paper sting. Domain randomisation on uniform levels — the dumbest possible baseline — lands in zero top groups. But PAIRED, one of the most-cited UED methods, also lands in zero top groups outside Spot, where all fourteen methods cluster within 3.8 percentage points on random levels at difficulty 0.25. The success-driven terrain curriculum borrowed from legged-robot practice appears in a top group most often, but even it is not universally dominant. On three of five robots, the leader on in-distribution random levels is not the leader on held-out structured terrain. This is a direct challenge to any paper that benchmarks a single UED method on a single morphology and claims generality. Architecturally, all methods share a PPO policy backbone; the variation is entirely in how training levels are selected or generated. The paper sorts these into UED methods (PLR, ACCEL, SFL, PAIRED and variants), domain randomisation baselines, and robotics-practice curricula. Levels live in a continuous 8-dimensional terrain-parameter space. The compute substrate is MuJoCo MJX (JAX-accelerated physics), which enables the matched-budget comparison that makes the benchmark credible — no method gets more wall-clock or environment steps than any other. Integrity is the paper's strongest suit. Evaluation uses interquartile means with stratified bootstrap confidence intervals, capability envelopes, and level-by-level domination comparisons. The authors report per-robot top groups defined as methods not significantly below the best, rather than picking a single winner. This is exactly the kind of honest, multi-comparison statistical protocol that most UED papers skip. Code, level space, and the full evaluation suite are released on GitHub. The main limitation is that validation is purely simulation-based — no sim-to-real transfer is tested. The milestone question is about coverage. Five robots and eight terrain parameters is a real start, but the natural next target is demonstrating that these findings hold on deformable or outdoor terrains and — critically — transfer to physical hardware. The gap between 'best in MuJoCo' and 'best on a real Go2 in a warehouse' is exactly where many curricula that look good in simulation collapse. The successor experiment the authors did not run is sim-to-real transfer on any of the five robots. The honest read: this is a compute and logistics constraint, not a strategic omission. The benchmark infrastructure they built is clearly designed to be extensible, and the GitHub release signals they want the community to add robots and terrains. But until a physical robot validates these rankings, the practical guidance remains simulation-contingent.
