You know how a text message can land completely differently depending on whether it comes from your boss, your friend, or a stranger — same words, same syntax, totally different emotional payload? That is this paper's core finding, applied to robot swarms. The same decentralised coordination algorithm, running on three physically distinct platforms, produced radically different human interpretations — not because the code failed, but because bodies talk louder than software. The committed claim: bridging the sim-to-real 'reality gap' is necessary but insufficient for deploying swarms in human spaces. A second gap — the 'perceptual gap' between what the swarm physically does and what onlookers actually perceive — must be addressed independently. The authors demonstrate this by deploying identical decentralised coordination code on tabletop robots, aerial drones, and human-scale mobile manipulators during live artistic performances, then surveying audiences. The hardware results are striking on their own. Execution timescales distorted by more than a factor of three across platforms, and trajectory geometry reshaped visibly — all from the same underlying algorithm. The swarm software was technically 'correct' on every platform, but the physical motions looked nothing alike. This is the reality gap in action, and the paper treats it as the well-understood half of the problem. The perceptual gap findings are where the paper earns its keep. Audience surveys revealed that meaning attribution (what observers think the swarm is doing or trying to do) and emotional responses (comfort versus threat) varied heavily by platform embodiment — but crucially, these two perceptual dimensions did not co-vary. A swarm could be perceived as purposeful but threatening, or aimless but comforting. The decoupling matters: you cannot engineer 'good perception' as a single knob. Methodologically, this is a live-audience study across three hardware platforms with survey-based human perception data — not a simulation-only validation. The use of live artistic performances as the deployment context is both a strength (ecological validity, real stakes) and a limitation (confounding variables from venue, music, lighting, audience demographics). The paper does not report standardised effect sizes or statistical power analysis, which limits the generalisability of the perceptual findings. The architectural family here is decentralised swarm coordination — specifically the same code deployed without modification across embodiments, leaning on the physical dynamics of each platform to produce emergent group behaviour. This is not a learning-based approach; it is classical multi-agent coordination evaluated through a human-factors lens. The novelty is not in the algorithm but in the evaluation framework that insists perception is a first-class design constraint. The practical takeaway is blunt: if you are building swarms for human environments — delivery, warehouse, public space — you need a perceptual design loop, not just a controls loop. The paper does not give you that loop, but it demonstrates convincingly that you need one. The next milestone is a quantitative perceptual model that predicts human interpretation from physical motion parameters, so engineers can optimise for legibility alongside stability.
