Imagine you're learning to crack an egg blindfolded. Someone gives you three different kinds of feedback: a photo of what your fingers look like on the shell (appearance), a 3D relief map of the dent you're making (geometry), and arrows showing which direction the shell is sliding under your fingertips (shear). Which one helps you most? This paper runs exactly that experiment — on a real robot, 720 times — and the answer is the arrows. The committed claim: decomposing a single tactile camera stream into physically interpretable sub-signals (appearance, geometry, tangential deformation) and processing them through cue-specific encoders yields better robot manipulation policies than feeding raw tactile images into a generic backbone. The strongest single cue is marker flow — the tangential deformation signal — which alone lifts success from 57.8% (vision only) to 74.4%, and combining all cues pushes to 78.9%. This is not a new sensor or a new policy architecture; it is a controlled ablation study that asks a question the field has been hand-waving past: which physical information in tactile images is doing the work? The experimental setup deserves credit. Built on the LeRobot platform with a custom visuo-tactile perception system, the study derives three signal types from the same GelSight-style sensor stream: RGB contact images, normal/depth maps, and marker-flow fields. Same demonstrations, same policy backbone (ACT — Action Chunking with Transformers), same hardware, same task set. The only variable is which tactile representation the policy sees and how it encodes it. That level of control is rare in real-robot tactile studies, where most papers change multiple things at once and attribute improvements to the one they named in the title. Four findings emerge from the 720 trials. First, tactile perception matters — the 57.8% → 78.9% overall jump is substantial. Second, marker flow is the MVP, particularly during the 'regulating established contact' phase of manipulation, which makes physical sense: once you're touching something, knowing how it's sliding is more informative than knowing what the contact patch looks like. Third, cue-factorized encoding (separate processing pipelines per cue type before fusion) consistently outperforms dumping everything into a single encoder, suggesting that geometry and deformation are sufficiently different signal types that they benefit from tailored feature extraction. Fourth, cross-attention fusion is a lightweight alternative to pretrained tactile encoders like T3, achieving comparable performance with less computational overhead. The ladder positioning is honest but narrow. The baseline is vision-only ACT on the same tasks — not a competing tactile-aware method from another group. The authors don't claim to beat any external SOTA; they claim to understand their own pipeline better. This is appropriate for an ablation study but limits how much you can generalize. The 78.9% combined success rate is strong for contact-rich manipulation in the real world, but without cross-lab replication or standardized benchmarks, the numbers are best read as relative within this experimental setup. The integrity story is solid for a 6-page workshop paper. Real robot, real tasks, 720 trials (enough to be statistically meaningful for manipulation), controlled single-variable comparisons. The weakness is the usual one: same team, same hardware, same task set. There's no indication of pre-registration, and the task selection could favor cues the authors expected to win. The finding that marker flow dominates is plausible on physical grounds, but we're trusting one lab's pipeline. The successor question is obvious: scale. The study uses a small set of contact-rich tasks. The natural next experiment is a broader task suite — especially tasks where geometry should dominate (e.g., shape sorting) or where appearance carries critical information (e.g., material classification). The authors likely didn't run this because the paper's scope is deliberately tight for a ROBIO submission, and broadening the task set means more demonstration collection, which is expensive in real-robot time. Expect the extended version within 12 months.
