docs: Add comprehensive podcast briefing document

- Add ATOMIZER_PODCAST_BRIEFING.md with complete technical overview
- Covers all 12 sections: architecture, optimization, neural acceleration
- Includes impressive statistics and metrics for podcast generation
- Update LAC failure insights from recent sessions
- Add M1_Mirror studies README

🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

knowledge_base/lac/session_insights/failure.jsonl

@@ -5,3 +5,4 @@
 {"timestamp":"2025-12-22T14:00:00","category":"failure","context":"V10 mirror optimization reported impossibly good relative WFE values (40-20=1.99nm instead of ~6nm, 60-20=6.82nm instead of ~13nm). User noticed results were 'too good to be true'.","insight":"CRITICAL BUG IN RELATIVE WFE CALCULATION: The V10 run_optimization.py computed relative WFE as abs(RMS_target - RMS_ref) instead of RMS(WFE_target - WFE_ref). This is mathematically WRONG because |RMS(A) - RMS(B)| ≠ RMS(A - B). The correct approach is to compute the node-by-node WFE difference FIRST, then fit Zernike to the difference field, then compute RMS. The bug gave values 3-4x lower than correct values because the 20° reference had HIGHER absolute WFE than 40°/60°, so the subtraction gave negative values, and abs() hid the problem. The fix is to use extractor.extract_relative() which correctly computes node-by-node differences. Both ZernikeExtractor and ZernikeOPDExtractor now have extract_relative() methods.","confidence":1.0,"tags":["zernike","wfe","relative-wfe","extract_relative","critical-bug","v10"],"severity":"critical","rule":"NEVER compute relative WFE as abs(RMS_target - RMS_ref). ALWAYS use extract_relative() which computes RMS(WFE_target - WFE_ref) by doing node-by-node subtraction first, then Zernike fitting, then RMS."}
 {"timestamp":"2025-12-28T17:30:00","category":"failure","context":"V5 turbo optimization created from scratch instead of copying V4. Multiple critical components were missing or wrong: no license server, wrong extraction keys (filtered_rms_nm vs relative_filtered_rms_nm), wrong mfg_90 key, missing figure_path parameter, incomplete version regex.","insight":"STUDY DERIVATION FAILURE: When creating a new study version (V5 from V4), NEVER rewrite the run_optimization.py from scratch. ALWAYS copy the working version first, then add/modify only the new feature (e.g., L-BFGS polish). Rewriting caused 5 independent bugs: (1) missing LICENSE_SERVER setup, (2) wrong extraction key filtered_rms_nm instead of relative_filtered_rms_nm, (3) wrong mfg_90 key, (4) missing figure_path=None in extractor call, (5) incomplete version regex missing DesigncenterNX pattern. The FEA/extraction pipeline is PROVEN CODE - never rewrite it. Only add new optimization strategies as modules on top.","confidence":1.0,"tags":["study-creation","copy-dont-rewrite","extraction","license-server","v5","critical"],"severity":"critical","rule":"When deriving a new study version, COPY the entire working run_optimization.py first. Add new features as ADDITIONS, not rewrites. The FEA pipeline (license, NXSolver setup, extraction) is proven - never rewrite it."}
 {"timestamp":"2025-12-28T21:30:00","category":"failure","context":"V5 flat back turbo optimization with MLP surrogate + L-BFGS polish. Surrogate predicted WS~280 but actual FEA gave WS~365-377. Error of 85-96 (30%+ relative error). All L-BFGS solutions converged to same fake optimum that didn't exist in reality.","insight":"SURROGATE + L-BFGS FAILURE MODE: Gradient-based optimization on MLP surrogates finds 'fake optima' that don't exist in real FEA. The surrogate has smooth gradients everywhere, but L-BFGS descends to regions OUTSIDE the training distribution where predictions are wildly wrong. V5 results: (1) Best TPE trial: WS=290.18, (2) Best L-BFGS trial: WS=325.27, (3) Worst L-BFGS trials: WS=376.52. The fancy L-BFGS polish made results WORSE than random TPE. Key issues: (a) No uncertainty quantification - can't detect out-of-distribution, (b) No mass constraint in surrogate - L-BFGS finds infeasible designs (122-124kg vs 120kg limit), (c) L-BFGS converges to same bad point from multiple starting locations (trials 31-44 all gave WS=376.52).","confidence":1.0,"tags":["surrogate","mlp","lbfgs","gradient-descent","fake-optima","out-of-distribution","v5","turbo"],"severity":"critical","rule":"NEVER trust gradient descent on surrogates without: (1) Uncertainty quantification to reject OOD predictions, (2) Mass/constraint prediction to enforce feasibility, (3) Trust-region to stay within training distribution. Pure TPE with real FEA often beats surrogate+gradient methods."}
+{"timestamp": "2025-12-29T15:29:55.869508", "category": "failure", "context": "Trial 5 solver error", "insight": "convergence_failure: Convergence failure at iteration 100", "confidence": 0.7, "tags": ["solver", "convergence_failure", "automatic"]}