Shaduf.Research preview
Digital Fly Lab/Sixth check: who does the walking? We gave the fly brain a body, refereed the Terraria fly and added 4 entries

Research report · 2 October 2026 · sixth check

Sixth check: who does the walking? We gave the fly brain a body, refereed the Terraria fly and added 4 entries

This check connected the whole-brain fly model from our Build your own guide to a simulated fly body, FlyGym, and measured how much of the walk comes from the brain. We wrote the design down before the first trial. We also refereed the week's fastest-growing fly-brain video, a fly brain with a body in Terraria, re-checked all 100 entries and 51 videos, finished the gain check left open on 1 Oct, and added 4 entries and 1 video.

  • Run: run:03aa82ff-d83b-47ec-bb36-c8edc64e696c
  • Research time: 2 Oct 2026, 09:34–10:22 UTC, one session, no interruptions
  • Catalogue version: 2026-10-02-run6 (104 entries)
  • Gallery: 52 videos
  • Controls ledger: 2026-10-02-run6 (33 studies)

Short answer

Lead scan: one claim promoted. George Ostrobrod's "I put a fly's brain into Terraria. And tried to train it" gained 24,664 views in about a day (3,580 to 28,244) and links its code. We graded it B from the files: a checksummed MaleCNS v1.0 connectome drives a Terraria body through hand-mapped senses and muscles, with plasticity, and there is no control, as the author says. No other claim met the bar. Gorilla Tag grew to 623,504 views and stays U.

Made by us: in our test the FlyGym fly walked 13.9 mm with the real brain, 14.1 mm with a scrambled brain and 14.3 mm with no brain: the walking comes from the stimulus and the body controller. The real brain did add turning commands that scrambled brains did not, and our hand-made mapping capped the forward drive, so speed could hardly differ by construction (limits).

  • "Add a body" on Build your own is now tested end to end: brain tested, body tested, mapping ours.
  • Tasting sugar sends no walking command in the model: the feeding neuron MN9 fires at 82 Hz, every walking command neuron is at 0 Hz, and the fly stands.
  • The gain-matched check of our 1 Oct fair test was not matched on 3 shuffles: ×2.5 matched shuffle 3 only, and MN9 stayed at 0 Hz at every gain.
  • Catalogue: 104 entries (+4). Gallery: 52 videos (+1). Controls ledger: 33 studies, 25 with a wiring null: helps 10, no difference 6, worse 2, mixed 6, not scored 1. No scoring rule changed.

What changed

  • 100 → 104catalogue entries (4 new: 1 A, 2 B, 1 C)
  • 51 → 52gallery videos (1 new, 0 removed)
  • 32 → 33control studies; 25 with a wiring null
  • 0grade changes; FlyDoom (eganeganegan) still "not found", record kept
What 33 control studies found when the fly wiring was scrambled33 control studies, one square per study: Real wiring helps 10; No difference 6; Real wiring does worse 2; Mixed: depends on the null 6; Not yet scored 1; Baselines only, no wiring null 8. 25 studies compare the real wiring with a scrambled or rewired copy.Real wiring helpsdrosophila-brain-mlx: helps (Reflex circuits)Drosophila_brain_model (Shiu et al. 2024): helps (Reflex circuits)fly-brain: helps (Reflex circuits)flydoom: helps (Sensory models)Fly OCR: helps (Sensory models)Are fruit flies zero-shot adapters?: helps (Steering a body)FLY-lab: What a fly connectome adds to controlling a body: helps (Steering a body)Is the fly brain actually playing DOOM? (control experiments): helps (Playing games)Brain Runners: helps (Playing games)Wired Different (ConnectomeLens): helps (Graph analysis, no simulation)10No differenceBuild your own, Add a body: FlyWire brain drives FlyGym walking (our run): no difference (Steering a body)making-fly-play-chess: no difference (Playing games)doomfly-rl: no difference (Playing games)fly-cartpole: no difference (Machine-learning benchmarks)Does the larval connectome beat its own shuffles? (connectome-null-models): no difference (Machine-learning benchmarks)NeuroWeave: no difference (Machine-learning benchmarks)6Real wiring does worseThe Fly's Hash Function: worse (Machine-learning benchmarks)flybrain-reservoir: worse (Reservoir computing)2Mixed: depends on the nullBuild your own: sugar to MN9 against four scrambled-wiring nulls (our run): mixed (Reflex circuits)Fly.exe (MaleCNS Virtual Fly): mixed (Steering a body)Fly Self Driving: mixed (Playing games)fly-plays-games (Pokémon Red chapter; formerly fly-plays-pokemon): mixed (Playing games)flybench: mixed (Machine-learning benchmarks)Null-model treatment of the sensory-motor boundary changes an evolutionary connectome comparison: mixed (Evolved controllers)6Not yet scoredBioReservoir: not yet scored (Forecasting)1Baselines only, no wiring nullflyvis: no wiring null (Sensory models)Flyhard (The Driving Fly): no wiring null (Steering a body)NeuroCraft Fly: no wiring null (Steering a body)DOOMFLY: no wiring null (Playing games)Fly Dino (flyjump): no wiring null (Playing games)Fly Worker: no wiring null (Playing games)Haltere: no wiring null (Playing games)FLM - Fly Language Model: no wiring null (Language models)825 with a wiring null 33 control studies, one square per study: Real wiring helps 10; No difference 6; Real wiring does worse 2; Mixed: depends on the null 6; Not yet scored 1; Baselines only, no wiring null 8. 25 studies compare the real wiring with a scrambled or rewired copy.Helps: 10No difference: 6Worse: 2Mixed: 6Not yet scored: 1No wiring null: 8
One square per study; hover a square for its name. 25 of the 33 studies compare the real wiring with a scrambled or rewired copy (a "wiring null"); the other 8 test only against a no-brain baseline or an ablation. Labels follow fixed rules applied to the authors' numbers.

Add a body: who does the walking?

Readers arrive from videos titled "the fly brain learned to walk". The honest answer has three parts: the legs, rhythm and balance come from a body controller; the brain sends a few numbers; and someone chose how neuron rates become those numbers. We measured each part with the most-used brain model and the most-used fly body. The rate-to-drive mapping between them is ours, hand-made and not fitted, everywhere it appears.

Who does the walking? Real brain, scrambled brain and no brain walk the same 14 mmTop-down walking paths of the simulated FlyGym 2.1.0 fly over 1 second, all from one start point and heading; forward is to the right. Real brain (Shiu et al. FlyWire v783 model, P9 forward-walking neurons stimulated, 3 trial seeds): 13.3, 14.4, 14.2 mm forward (mean 13.9). Scrambled brain (3 degree-preserving shuffles, P9 stimulated): 14.1 mm each; the three shuffles sent identical drives, so their paths lie on top of each other. No brain, constant drive matched to the real brain's average: 14.3 mm. No brain, random drives: 13.5, 14.0, 14.4 mm. Real brain tasting sugar: 0 mm, the fly stands. Zero drive: 0 mm. Legs, rhythm and balance come from FlyGym's walking controller; the brain sends two numbers every 100 ms; how neuron rates become those numbers is our hand-made mapping.Who does the walking?Digital Fly LabA whole-brain fly model (FlyWire) "drives" a simulated FlyGym fly for 1 second. Top view, all paths from one start.Real brain 13.9 mm · scrambled brain 14.1 mm · no brain 14.3 mm. Same walk.051015 mmforward →No brain, random drive (random-0): 14.0 mm forward, heading -9.7°No brain, random drive (random-1): 14.4 mm forward, heading -7.5°No brain, random drive (random-2): 13.5 mm forward, heading -27.2°No brain, constant drive: 14.3 mm forwardScrambled brain, 3 shuffles with identical drives: 14.1 mm forward eachReal brain (P9-real-0): 13.3 mm forward, heading -26.3°Real brain (P9-real-1): 14.4 mm forward, heading -0.4°Real brain (P9-real-2): 14.2 mm forward, heading -14.4°startReal brain, P9 stimulated13.3, 14.4, 14.2 mm (3 seeds)Scrambled brain, P9 stimulated14.1 mm. Identical drives from all 3shuffles: 3 paths on top of each otherNo brain: constant drive14.3 mm (brain's average, held 1 s)No brain: random drives13.5, 14.0, 14.4 mm (3 seeds)Real brain tasting sugar0 mm: no walking command, it standsZero drive0 mmForward distance in 1 secondevery walk: 13.3–14.4 mmReal brain (3 seeds)13.9 mm meanScrambled brain (3)14.1 mm ×3No brain, constant14.3 mmNo brain, random (3)14.0 mm meanBrain tasting sugar0 mm, standsZero drive0 mm0 mm5 mm10 mm15 mmWhat makes the fly walk1Legs, rhythm and balance: FlyGym's walking controller. With no brain at all, its default drive walks 13.0 mm.2The brain sends two numbers, left and right, every 100 ms. We stimulate its forward-walking neurons (P9).3How neuron rates become those two numbers is our hand-made mapping. It caps each number at 1.2,and 90 of the 120 numbers in the P9 walks sit at that cap, so speed could hardly differ.But the real brain did add turning commands (DNa02, right > left) that scrambled brains did not; in 1 s theheading changes stayed within what random no-brain drives produce. One stimulus, one model, one body, 1 s, open loop.Source: Digital Fly Lab, our own test of 2 Oct 2026. Brain: Shiu et al. 2024 model, FlyWire v783 (commit 91bdd1e7). Body: FlyGym 2.1.0.Method, files and limits: shaduf.ai/p/digital-fly-catalog/does-fly-wiring-help/#body-heading Who does the walking? Top-down walking paths of the simulated FlyGym 2.1.0 fly over 1 second, all from one start point and heading; forward is to the right. Real brain (Shiu et al. FlyWire v783 model, P9 forward-walking neurons stimulated, 3 trial seeds): 13.3, 14.4, 14.2 mm forward (mean 13.9). Scrambled brain (3 degree-preserving shuffles, P9 stimulated): 14.1 mm each; the three shuffles sent identical drives, so their paths lie on top of each other. No brain, constant drive matched to the real brain's average: 14.3 mm. No brain, random drives: 13.5, 14.0, 14.4 mm. Real brain tasting sugar: 0 mm, the fly stands. Zero drive: 0 mm. Legs, rhythm and balance come from FlyGym's walking controller; the brain sends two numbers every 100 ms; how neuron rates become those numbers is our hand-made mapping.Top view, 1 s, one start051015 mmReal brain ×313.3, 14.4, 14.2 mmScrambled ×314.1 mm, 1 path ×3No brain, constant14.3 mmNo brain, random ×313.5, 14.0, 14.4 mmBrain tasting sugar0 mm: it standsZero drive0 mmForward in 1 sReal brain ×3Scrambled ×3No brain, constantNo brain, random ×3Brain tasting sugarZero drive015 mmSame walk with orwithout a brain.Digital Fly Lab, 2 Oct 2026

What makes the fly walk. (1) Legs, rhythm and balance come from FlyGym's walking controller. (2) The brain sends two numbers, left and right, every 100 ms. (3) How neuron rates become those two numbers is our hand-made mapping. Paths are drawn to scale from the thorax position every 10 ms; forward is to the right. The three scrambled-brain paths coincide because their drives were identical. Our test of 2 Oct 2026, pre-registered before the first trial.

Open the chart as an image (SVG) to share it; it carries its own title, numbers and source line.

Read this before sharing. The fly walks because we stimulate its forward-walking neurons (P9); P9 fires at the same rates whether the rest of the brain is real or scrambled. Our mapping caps each drive number at 1.2, and 90 of the 120 drive values of the six P9 walks (75%) sit exactly at the 1.2 clip, so forward speed could hardly differ between conditions by construction. Another hand-made mapping could let the wiring matter more. One stimulus, one model, one body, 1 s of walking, open loop (the body never feeds back to the brain).

The brain is not doing nothing. Only the real wiring recruited the turning neurons DNa02, more on the right than the left in all three seeds; the scrambled brains recruited no mapped neuron. That turned the real-brain fly by −0.4° to −26°, but random no-brain drives turned it by −7° to −27° in the same second, so 1 s of walking cannot tell the two apart. Sugar: the same brain tasting sugar fires its feeding neuron MN9 at 82 Hz while every walking command neuron stays at 0 Hz, so the fly stands.

Numbers behind the chart (all 18 runs)
Our body runs of 2 Oct 2026: FlyGym 2.1.0, 0.2 s settle, then 1.0 s driven. Forward = along the starting heading; heading + = left (unwrapped). Drive = mean left / right number over the ten 100 ms bins. Brain rates are means over the bins (Hz, left/right). The first 12 rows are the pre-registered core; the last 6 are a sanity check and fill runs. File names refer to our research files for this run.
RunGroupForward (mm)Heading (°)Path (mm)Drive L / RBrain sends (Hz)Files
Real brain, P9, trial seed 0Real brain13.26-26.318.891.20 / 1.00P9 130/162, DNa02 7/29, MDN 0/0body/P9-real-0.json
drives/P9-real-0.json
brain/P9-real-0.json
Real brain, P9, trial seed 1Real brain14.35-0.419.641.16 / 1.11P9 146/132, DNa02 11/21, MDN 0/0body/P9-real-1.json
drives/P9-real-1.json
brain/P9-real-1.json
Real brain, P9, trial seed 2Real brain14.17-14.419.501.19 / 1.06P9 141/136, DNa02 10/25, MDN 0/0body/P9-real-2.json
drives/P9-real-2.json
brain/P9-real-2.json
Scrambled brain, P9, shuffle 3Scrambled brain14.15-14.619.521.20 / 1.06P9 130/162, DNa02 0/0, MDN 0/0body/P9-D3.json
drives/P9-D3.json
brain/P9-D-3.json
Scrambled brain, P9, shuffle 4Scrambled brain14.15-14.619.521.20 / 1.06P9 130/162, DNa02 0/0, MDN 0/0body/P9-D4.json
drives/P9-D4.json
brain/P9-D-4.json
Scrambled brain, P9, shuffle 5Scrambled brain14.15-14.619.521.20 / 1.06P9 130/162, DNa02 0/0, MDN 0/0body/P9-D5.json
drives/P9-D5.json
brain/P9-D-5.json
No brain, constant drive (L 1.18, R 1.06)No brain14.28-11.319.491.18 / 1.06no brainbody/matched.json
drives/matched.json
No brain, random drive, seed 0No brain14.01-9.719.071.16 / 1.05no brainbody/random-0.json
drives/random-0.json
No brain, random drive, seed 1No brain14.39-7.519.651.18 / 1.08no brainbody/random-1.json
drives/random-1.json
No brain, random drive, seed 2No brain13.48-27.218.811.19 / 0.97no brainbody/random-2.json
drives/random-2.json
Real brain tasting sugarSugar0.00-0.00.120.00 / 0.00P9 0/0, DNa02 0/0, MDN 0/0body/SUG-real-0.json
drives/SUG-real-0.json
brain/SUG-real-0.json
Zero driveFloor0.00-0.00.120.00 / 0.00no brainbody/zero.json
drives/zero.json
FlyGym default drive (1, 1), sanity checkNo brain (sanity)13.016.717.481.00 / 1.00no brainbody/const-1.json
drives/const-1.json
Scrambled brain tasting sugar, shuffle 3Sugar (fill)0.00-0.00.120.00 / 0.00P9 0/0, DNa02 0/0, MDN 0/0body/SUG-D3.json
drives/SUG-D3.json
brain/SUG-D-3.json
Scrambled brain tasting sugar, shuffle 4Sugar (fill)0.00-0.00.120.00 / 0.00P9 0/0, DNa02 0/0, MDN 0/0body/SUG-D4.json
drives/SUG-D4.json
brain/SUG-D-4.json
Scrambled brain tasting sugar, shuffle 5Sugar (fill)0.00-0.00.120.00 / 0.00P9 0/0, DNa02 0/0, MDN 0/0body/SUG-D5.json
drives/SUG-D5.json
brain/SUG-D-5.json
Real brain, left P9 onlyReal brain (fill)-4.77254.212.75-0.07 / 1.11P9 131/0, DNa02 14/0, MDN 0/0body/P9L-real-0.json
drives/P9L-real-0.json
brain/P9L-real-0.json
Scrambled brain, left P9 only, shuffle 3Scrambled brain (fill)-2.18210.310.160.00 / 1.11P9 131/0, DNa02 0/0, MDN 0/0body/P9L-D3.json
drives/P9L-D3.json
brain/P9L-D-3.json

Retention, (null − zero) / (real − zero) on the mean forward distance: scrambled 1.016, brainless constant 1.025, brainless random 1.002. Mapping (ours, hand-made, not fitted): drive_s = clip(pbar − 0.5·(p_s − p_o) − m_s − 0.5·(a_s − a_o), −1.2, 1.2) with p, m, a = DNp09, MDN and DNa02 rates ÷ 100 Hz.

Replay any run 100 ms at a time, with what the brain sends and the two drive numbers it becomes:

The design, written down first

The design and the gain-check addendum were copied into the pre-registration at 09:35:33 UTC, before the first brain trial (09:37:57 UTC). Every trial file holds the spike counts of all 1,299 descending neurons in ten 100 ms bins.

What we ran, and whose each part is.
PartWhatWhoseStatus
BrainShiu et al. 2024 leaky integrate-and-fire model, model.py at commit 91bdd1e7, FlyWire v783 (138,639 neurons), upstream defaults, Poisson stimulus at 150 Hz, 1 s trials, one fresh process per trial (Python 3.11, Brian2 2.9.0)Shiu et al.tested
StimulusSugar: the 21 sugar-taste neurons of the model's own experiment. P9: the forward-walking command neurons DNp09, left and right, the model version of Bidaye et al. 2020's activation of P9. Fill: left P9 onlyour choice, from the paperstested
WiringReal (trial seeds 0–2 for P9), and degree-preserving shuffles 3, 4 and 5 (the null of our 1 Oct test, unchanged) at trial seed 0FlyWire; shuffles ourstested
MappingFor each 100 ms bin and side: forward from P9, minus backward (MDN), minus half the turning difference (DNa02), all ÷ 100 Hz and capped at ±1.2; each bin held for 100 ms of body time. Unit tests: 8 passedours, hand-madetested (unit tests)
BodyFlyGym 2.1.0 HybridTurningController (the NeuroMechFly v2 two-number descending drive), built as in upstream's own test; 0.2 s settle, then 1.0 s driven; thorax recorded every 10 ms; CPU, MUJOCO_GL=disableFlyGym (NeuroMechFly v2)tested
ControlsScrambled brains (3 shuffles); no brain with a constant drive matched to the real brain's average per side (L 1.18, R 1.06); no brain with random drives of the same mean and spread (3 seeds); zero drive; FlyGym's default (1, 1) as a sanity checkourstested
MetricForward distance of the thorax along the starting heading in 1.0 s (mm); also heading change and path lengthourspre-registered

Deviations, in plain words

  • The turning sign of P9 (changed before any body run). Bidaye et al. 2020 report that P9 "drives forward walking with ipsilateral turning": a fly with only its left P9 active walks and turns left. A direction check showed that FlyGym turns a fly toward the side with the smaller drive (drive 1.0 left and 0.3 right turned it 129° to the right). Our pre-registered formula gave each side its own P9 rate, so a left-only P9 fly would have turned right, the wrong way. We used the other side's P9 rate as each side's forward term instead. With both P9s active this changes each drive by only 0.08–0.14 per bin; with left P9 alone the fly now spins left (+254° real, +210° scrambled), as the paper says. The pre-registered drives are kept in every drive file but were not run in the body.
  • The first FlyGym install failed with "No space left on device" in /tmp: with caching off, the installer unpacks a large wheel in the temporary folder. Pointing TMPDIR at a folder with room fixed it (7 s).
  • An analysis fix, not a design change: the body files store the heading wrapped to ±180°, which would have read the left spins as right turns. The analysis unwraps it from the 10 ms trajectory, and the body script is fixed for future runs.

Which neurons, and why

Basis check of the descending neurons we read (one direct source each, read on 2 Oct 2026).
Cell typeRoleSourceStatus
DNp09 (P9)forward drive, per side (mapped)Bidaye et al. 2020, Neuron, abstract: "P9 drives forward walking with ipsilateral turning"verified; sign fixed (deviation above)
MDNbackward drive (mapped)Bidaye et al. 2014, Science: descending neurons for backward walkingverified
DNa02turning (mapped)Rayshubskiy et al. 2025, eLife: "unilateral activation of DNa02 influences ipsilateral rotational movements"verified; our sign is ipsilateral
DNa01recorded onlysame paper: activity "predicts spontaneous ipsilateral turning"verified
DNp01 (giant fibre)recorded onlyvon Reyn et al. 2014, Nature Neuroscience: escapeverified
DNg62recorded onlyShiu et al. 2024 never uses the name; the upstream figure code labels the right DNg62 as the grooming neuron aDN1partly verified (right side, label only)
Two-number drivethe body interfaceFlyGym 2.1.0 source: descending_signal has shape (2,), element 0 = left legs, sign = stepping direction; plus our direction checkverified in code

Install, sizes and times

  • Brain environment (the beginner-path pins of Build your own): installed in 36 s, both data checksums matched. It was deleted before the body install began, so the two environments never coexisted on our 3 GiB machine.
  • Body: uv 0.9.0 in a throwaway environment (10 s), CPython 3.12.11 through uv (2 s, 103 MB), flygym==2.1.0 with caching off (7 s on the second attempt; 47 packages including mujoco 3.9.0, numba 0.68.0, numpy 2.5.3). Environment 602 MB; scratch peak 805 MB.
  • Memory: brain trials peaked at 0.77 GB each, body runs at 0.27 GB. A body run of 1.2 s body time took about 70 s on one CPU.
  • Pins are in a lock file from uv pip freeze; the steps are on Build your own.

What the brain sends down

Gate: our first sugar trial gave MN9 82.0 Hz, bit-exact with our runs of 28 Sep and 1 Oct. All 15 brain trials of this check finished, and every shuffle passed its property checks (edges, synapse total, in- and out-degree).

What the brain model sends down to the body: mean rates (Hz, left / right) over 1 s of the descending neurons our mapping reads, plus MN9 for sugar. Our trials of 2 Oct 2026 (Shiu et al. model, FlyWire v783, Poisson stimulus at 150 Hz). DNa01, DNp01 and DNg62 were recorded too: all 0 Hz except DNg62 left in one sugar shuffle (26 Hz).
TrialMN9 (feeding)Whole-brain spikesActive descending neurons (of 1,299)P9 (forward)DNa02 (turning)MDN (backward)
Sugar, real wiring (our gate trial)82 Hz13,372650 / 00 / 00 / 0
Sugar, scrambled (shuffle 3)0 Hz3,93730 / 00 / 00 / 0
Sugar, scrambled (shuffle 4)0 Hz4,15240 / 00 / 00 / 0
Sugar, scrambled (shuffle 5)0 Hz4,04310 / 00 / 00 / 0
P9, real wiring, seed 00 Hz1,37041130 / 1627 / 290 / 0
P9, real wiring, seed 10 Hz1,03725146 / 13211 / 210 / 0
P9, real wiring, seed 20 Hz1,36444141 / 13610 / 250 / 0
P9, scrambled (shuffle 3)0 Hz1,0554130 / 1620 / 00 / 0
P9, scrambled (shuffle 4)0 Hz1,0162130 / 1620 / 00 / 0
P9, scrambled (shuffle 5)0 Hz1,0135130 / 1620 / 00 / 0
Left P9 only, real wiring0 Hz3939131 / 014 / 00 / 0
Left P9 only, scrambled (shuffle 3)0 Hz3932131 / 00 / 00 / 0
  • Sugar sends no walking command. With real wiring every candidate walking neuron is at 0 Hz while MN9 fires at 82 Hz; the 65 active descending neurons are other types (DNge031, DNge059, DNg103 and others). This reproduces the upstream authors' own committed sugar result (0 spikes in the same 14 neurons).
  • P9 fires because we stimulate it. Its rates are identical in real seed 0 and in all three shuffles, which use the same trial seed.
  • The real brain adds turning commands; the scrambled brains add nothing. With real wiring, P9 recruits DNa02, more on the right than the left in all three seeds, plus other descending types (DNa06, DNa11, DNg75, DNg97 and more). The scrambled brains recruit no mapped neuron. Left P9 alone recruits the left DNa02, the same side.
  • No backward command (MDN) in any trial.

Readings, as pre-registered

  • Retention (null − zero) / (real − zero) on forward distance: scrambled 1.016, brainless constant 1.025, brainless random 1.002.
  • Scrambled retention ≥ 0.9: "the walk does not need the fly wiring: it comes from the stimulated command neurons and FlyGym's controller".
  • Brainless-constant retention ≥ 0.9: "a brainless constant command walks as well as the brain".
  • Sugar: "tasting sugar sends no walking command in this model".
  • The brain does change the heading, through DNa02 and our 0.5 weight: −26°, −0.4° and −14° over the three real seeds, −14.6° for the scrambled brain (from the left–right difference of the stimulated P9 rates alone). One second of walking cannot tell a brain-made turn from noise of this size: the brainless random drives turned it by −7° to −27°.

What is FlyGym's, what is ours, what is the brain's

Who does what when a fly brain model drives a FlyGym flyWho does what in our Add-a-body test, measured on 2 Oct 2026. 1, stimulus (ours): we drive the forward-walking neurons P9 (DNp09) at 150 Hz; P9 then fires at 130–162 Hz in real and scrambled brains alike. 2, brain (Shiu et al. model on FlyWire v783): the real wiring recruits the turning neurons DNa02, more on the right (21–29 Hz) than the left (7–11 Hz); scrambled brains recruit none; the backward neurons MDN stay at 0 Hz. 3, mapping (ours, hand-made): every 100 ms the rates become two numbers, divided by 100 Hz and capped at 1.2; 90 of the 120 drive values of the six P9 walks (75%) sit exactly at the 1.2 clip. 4, body (FlyGym 2.1.0's walking controller): legs, rhythm and balance, 13–14 mm per second; with no brain, the default drive (1, 1) walks 13.0 mm. Open loop: the body never feeds back to the brain. With sugar instead of P9, MN9 fires at 82 Hz, every walking command is at 0 Hz and the fly stands.1 · STIMULUSWe drive P9OursDNp09 at 150 Hz, bothsides. P9 then fires130–162 Hz in real andscrambled brains alike2 · BRAINAdds turningShiu et al. modelReal wiring recruitsDNa02: right 21–29 Hz,left 7–11 Hz. Scrambled:none. MDN (back) 0 Hz3 · MAPPINGRates → 2 numbersOurs, hand-madeEvery 100 ms, ÷ 100 Hz,capped at 1.2. In theP9 walks 75% of thenumbers sit at the cap4 · BODYWalksFlyGym 2.1.0Legs, rhythm, balance:13–14 mm per second.No brain, drive (1, 1):13.0 mm in 1 sThe simulated brainOpen loop: the body never feeds back to the brain. With sugar instead of P9: MN9 82 Hz, every walking command 0 Hz, the fly stands. Who does what in our Add-a-body test, measured on 2 Oct 2026. 1, stimulus (ours): we drive the forward-walking neurons P9 (DNp09) at 150 Hz; P9 then fires at 130–162 Hz in real and scrambled brains alike. 2, brain (Shiu et al. model on FlyWire v783): the real wiring recruits the turning neurons DNa02, more on the right (21–29 Hz) than the left (7–11 Hz); scrambled brains recruit none; the backward neurons MDN stay at 0 Hz. 3, mapping (ours, hand-made): every 100 ms the rates become two numbers, divided by 100 Hz and capped at 1.2; 90 of the 120 drive values of the six P9 walks (75%) sit exactly at the 1.2 clip. 4, body (FlyGym 2.1.0's walking controller): legs, rhythm and balance, 13–14 mm per second; with no brain, the default drive (1, 1) walks 13.0 mm. Open loop: the body never feeds back to the brain. With sugar instead of P9, MN9 fires at 82 Hz, every walking command is at 0 Hz and the fly stands.1 · STIMULUSWe drive P9OursDNp09 at 150 Hz, bothsides. P9 then fires130–162 Hz in real andscrambled brains alike2 · BRAINAdds turningShiu et al. modelReal wiring recruitsDNa02: right 21–29 Hz,left 7–11 Hz. Scrambled:none. MDN (back) 0 Hz3 · MAPPINGRates → 2 numbersOurs, hand-madeEvery 100 ms, ÷ 100 Hz,capped at 1.2. In theP9 walks 75% of thenumbers sit at the cap4 · BODYWalksFlyGym 2.1.0Legs, rhythm, balance:13–14 mm per second.No brain, drive (1, 1):13.0 mm in 1 sOpen loop. Sugar instead ofP9: MN9 82 Hz, walkingcommands 0 Hz: it stands.
Measured in our Add-a-body test of 2 Oct 2026 (one stimulus, one model, one body, 1 s, open loop). Colours as in the sense → model → act loop on How it works: orange hand-made, blue modelled, green measured, grey dashed engineered or scripted. Details on Does fly wiring help?

The new ledger row

byo-flygym-body (steering a body, open loop): real 13.93 ± 0.58 mm (3 seeds), floor 0 mm (zero drive), degree-preserving null 14.15 mm, brainless constant and random drives as no-brain baselines. By the fixed rules: No difference, retention 1.016, baseline retention 1.025, baseline not beaten, fair null, strong method. Brain activity of the scrambled brains is comparable to the real one (0.818 of its spikes).

Disclosure: the rules count 3 shuffle samples, but the three shuffles sent identical drives, so in effect this is one walk. We did not override the rules, because we never use the borderline override on our own rows. The study belongs with the Build your own record, like our 1 Oct test; the catalogue gets no new entry for it.

Limitations of the body test

  • One stimulus pattern (P9 at 150 Hz on both sides), one model, one body, 1 s of walking, 3 seeds and 3 shuffles (one walk in effect).
  • The mapping decides how much the wiring can matter. At 100 Hz per unit, the P9 drive sits at the 1.2 cap in most bins (90 of the 120 drive values of the six P9 walks), so forward speed can hardly differ between conditions. Another hand-made mapping could let the wiring matter more. We did not tune it, by design.
  • Open loop: the body never feeds back to the brain. The brain trial runs first, and the body replays its drive.
  • Not tested: the pre-registered P9 sign in the body, other P9 rates, other descending neuron types (DNa01 was at 0 Hz in every trial).

Open items from 1 Oct, settled

The gain check: not matched on 3 shuffles

On 1 Oct the degree-preserving brain of our fair test stayed silent at 1.5, 2 and 3 times stronger synapses, but no gain brought its activity within ±30% of the real brain's (9,680–17,976 spikes). This check tried ×2.5 as pre-registered. Shuffle 3 at ×2.5 fired 10,138 spikes, inside the band on the first try, so no second gain was needed. At the same gain, shuffles 4 and 5 fired 24,277 and 29,297 spikes, above the band. So the arm is not matched on 3 shuffles, and "tuned equally" stays false by the existing rule. MN9 stayed at 0 Hz in all six gain trials, from 0.37 to 2.12 times the real activity: the scrambled brains mis-route the sugar signal; they are not just too quiet. Different shuffles need different gains, which a per-shuffle gain search could settle (a candidate for a later check).

We scrambled the fly brain four ways: how much of the sugar reflex survives, and how active the brain getsOur own pre-registered fair test (1 Oct 2026): sugar neurons to the feeding motor neuron MN9 in the Shiu et al. whole-brain model, real wiring against four scrambled versions, one dot per shuffle. Real wiring: 85.2 ± 3.56 Hz, 5 trials, response kept 1.00, whole-brain activity 1.0× real; Degree-preserving: 0 ± 0 Hz, 5 shuffles, response kept 0.00, whole-brain activity 0.29× real; Weight shuffle: 0 ± 0 Hz, 5 shuffles, response kept 0.00, whole-brain activity 0.39× real; Boundary-preserving: 39 ± 1.22 Hz, 5 shuffles, response kept 0.46, whole-brain activity 0.65× real; Sign shuffle: 214.2 ± 43.27 Hz, 5 shuffles, response kept 2.51, whole-brain activity 258× real; Gain check (D, ×1.5–×3): 0 Hz at every gain; not matched on 3 shuffles, response kept 0, activity 0.37×, 0.50×, 0.73×, 1.7×, 1.8×, 2.1× real at gains ×1.5 (shuffle 3), ×2 (shuffle 3), ×2.5 (shuffle 3), ×3 (shuffle 3), ×2.5 (shuffle 4), ×2.5 (shuffle 5). Degree-preserving and weight shuffles are silent while the brain goes quiet; the boundary-preserving shuffle keeps about 46%; the sign shuffle fires above the real rate only because the whole brain ignites. The gain check (6 trials, 1 and 2 Oct 2026) stayed silent at every gain, from 0.37 to 2.12 times the real activity; ×2.5 brought shuffle 3 within ±30% of the real activity, but shuffles 4 and 5 at ×2.5 fired 1.76 and 2.12 times the real activity, so by our pre-registered rule the arm is not matched on 3 shuffles.01230.1×1×10×100×1000×MN9 response kept0 = silent · 1 = as realWhole-brain activityspikes vs real (log)Real wiringthe measured connectomeReal wiring: MN9 82 Hz, response kept 0.96Real wiring: MN9 89 Hz, response kept 1.04Real wiring: MN9 81 Hz, response kept 0.95Real wiring: MN9 86 Hz, response kept 1.01Real wiring: MN9 88 Hz, response kept 1.031 (reference)Real wiring: whole-brain spikes 0.97× the real runReal wiring: whole-brain spikes 0.98× the real runReal wiring: whole-brain spikes 1.0× the real runReal wiring: whole-brain spikes 1.0× the real runReal wiring: whole-brain spikes 1.0× the real run1.0×Degree-preservingkeeps partner countsDegree-preserving: MN9 0 Hz, response kept 0.00Degree-preserving: MN9 0 Hz, response kept 0.00Degree-preserving: MN9 0 Hz, response kept 0.00Degree-preserving: MN9 0 Hz, response kept 0.00Degree-preserving: MN9 0 Hz, response kept 0.00silent: 0Degree-preserving: whole-brain spikes 0.29× the real runDegree-preserving: whole-brain spikes 0.29× the real runDegree-preserving: whole-brain spikes 0.28× the real runDegree-preserving: whole-brain spikes 0.30× the real runDegree-preserving: whole-brain spikes 0.29× the real run0.29×Weight shufflekeeps who connects to whomWeight shuffle: MN9 0 Hz, response kept 0.00Weight shuffle: MN9 0 Hz, response kept 0.00Weight shuffle: MN9 0 Hz, response kept 0.00Weight shuffle: MN9 0 Hz, response kept 0.00Weight shuffle: MN9 0 Hz, response kept 0.00silent: 0Weight shuffle: whole-brain spikes 0.38× the real runWeight shuffle: whole-brain spikes 0.41× the real runWeight shuffle: whole-brain spikes 0.36× the real runWeight shuffle: whole-brain spikes 0.39× the real runWeight shuffle: whole-brain spikes 0.40× the real run0.39×Boundary-preservingkeeps sensory and motor wiringBoundary-preserving: MN9 38 Hz, response kept 0.45Boundary-preserving: MN9 39 Hz, response kept 0.46Boundary-preserving: MN9 39 Hz, response kept 0.46Boundary-preserving: MN9 41 Hz, response kept 0.48Boundary-preserving: MN9 38 Hz, response kept 0.45partly: 0.46Boundary-preserving: whole-brain spikes 0.65× the real runBoundary-preserving: whole-brain spikes 0.63× the real runBoundary-preserving: whole-brain spikes 0.62× the real runBoundary-preserving: whole-brain spikes 0.65× the real runBoundary-preserving: whole-brain spikes 0.69× the real run0.65×Sign shuffleswaps excite and inhibitSign shuffle: MN9 268 Hz, response kept 3.15Sign shuffle: MN9 188 Hz, response kept 2.21Sign shuffle: MN9 191 Hz, response kept 2.24Sign shuffle: MN9 253 Hz, response kept 2.97Sign shuffle: MN9 171 Hz, response kept 2.01runaway: 2.51Sign shuffle: whole-brain spikes 291× the real runSign shuffle: whole-brain spikes 251× the real runSign shuffle: whole-brain spikes 271× the real runSign shuffle: whole-brain spikes 235× the real runSign shuffle: whole-brain spikes 241× the real run258×Gain check (D, ×1.5–×3)shuffles 3–5, stronger synapsesGain check (D, ×1.5–×3), gain ×1.5 (shuffle 3): MN9 0 Hz, response kept 0.00Gain check (D, ×1.5–×3), gain ×2 (shuffle 3): MN9 0 Hz, response kept 0.00Gain check (D, ×1.5–×3), gain ×2.5 (shuffle 3): MN9 0 Hz, response kept 0.00Gain check (D, ×1.5–×3), gain ×3 (shuffle 3): MN9 0 Hz, response kept 0.00Gain check (D, ×1.5–×3), gain ×2.5 (shuffle 4): MN9 0 Hz, response kept 0.00Gain check (D, ×1.5–×3), gain ×2.5 (shuffle 5): MN9 0 Hz, response kept 0.00silent: 0Gain check (D, ×1.5–×3), gain ×1.5 (shuffle 3): whole-brain spikes 0.37× the real runGain check (D, ×1.5–×3), gain ×2 (shuffle 3): whole-brain spikes 0.50× the real runGain check (D, ×1.5–×3), gain ×2.5 (shuffle 3): whole-brain spikes 0.73× the real runGain check (D, ×1.5–×3), gain ×3 (shuffle 3): whole-brain spikes 1.7× the real runGain check (D, ×1.5–×3), gain ×2.5 (shuffle 4): whole-brain spikes 1.8× the real runGain check (D, ×1.5–×3), gain ×2.5 (shuffle 5): whole-brain spikes 2.1× the real runup to 2.1×realsilentpartlyrunawayone dot per trial or shuffle · bar = mean Our own pre-registered fair test (1 Oct 2026): sugar neurons to the feeding motor neuron MN9 in the Shiu et al. whole-brain model, real wiring against four scrambled versions, one dot per shuffle. Real wiring: 85.2 ± 3.56 Hz, 5 trials, response kept 1.00, whole-brain activity 1.0× real; Degree-preserving: 0 ± 0 Hz, 5 shuffles, response kept 0.00, whole-brain activity 0.29× real; Weight shuffle: 0 ± 0 Hz, 5 shuffles, response kept 0.00, whole-brain activity 0.39× real; Boundary-preserving: 39 ± 1.22 Hz, 5 shuffles, response kept 0.46, whole-brain activity 0.65× real; Sign shuffle: 214.2 ± 43.27 Hz, 5 shuffles, response kept 2.51, whole-brain activity 258× real; Gain check (D, ×1.5–×3): 0 Hz at every gain; not matched on 3 shuffles, response kept 0, activity 0.37×, 0.50×, 0.73×, 1.7×, 1.8×, 2.1× real at gains ×1.5 (shuffle 3), ×2 (shuffle 3), ×2.5 (shuffle 3), ×3 (shuffle 3), ×2.5 (shuffle 4), ×2.5 (shuffle 5). Degree-preserving and weight shuffles are silent while the brain goes quiet; the boundary-preserving shuffle keeps about 46%; the sign shuffle fires above the real rate only because the whole brain ignites. The gain check (6 trials, 1 and 2 Oct 2026) stayed silent at every gain, from 0.37 to 2.12 times the real activity; ×2.5 brought shuffle 3 within ±30% of the real activity, but shuffles 4 and 5 at ×2.5 fired 1.76 and 2.12 times the real activity, so by our pre-registered rule the arm is not matched on 3 shuffles.Response kept: 0 to 3Activity: 0.1× to 1000×Real wiring1 (reference)activity 1.0×Degree shufflesilent: 0activity 0.29×Weight shufflesilent: 0activity 0.39×Boundary keptpartly: 0.46activity 0.65×Sign shufflerunaway: 2.51activity 258×Gain checksilent: 0activity up to 2.1×Grey band: silent (≤ 0.10)Line: the real value (1)
Our own test, pre-registered on 1 Oct 2026 before any scrambled trial: 21 sugar neurons at 150 Hz, readout the feeding motor neuron MN9, Shiu et al. whole-brain model on FlyWire v783, one 1 s trial per shuffle. First scale: how much of the real MN9 response each scrambled brain keeps (dots: single shuffles; bar: mean). Second scale: how active the whole brain is, as a multiple of the real run (log scale). Silent arms leave a quiet brain; the sign shuffle's high MN9 rate comes with a brain about 258 times more active than real, so it is runaway, not a better reflex. Gain check: 6 trials on shuffles 3–5 with stronger synapses (1 and 2 Oct), all silent.
Numbers behind the chart
Our fair test, 1 Oct 2026: one 1 s trial per shuffle at trial seed 0; the real-wiring row is our run of 28 Sep 2026 (re-runs bit-exact). Activity is whole-brain spikes as a multiple of the real run's 13,828.
ArmWhat it keepsMN9 (Hz), mean ± sdPer shuffle (Hz)Response keptActivity vs realNeurons activeReading
Real wiringThe measured FlyWire v783 connectome85.2 ± 3.56 (5 trials)82, 89, 81, 86, 8811× (13,372–14,284 spikes)366–385reference
Degree-preservingKeeps partner counts0 ± 00, 0, 0, 0, 000.291×103silent
Weight shuffleKeeps who connects to whom0 ± 00, 0, 0, 0, 000.388×109silent
Boundary-preservingKeeps sensory and motor wiring39 ± 1.2238, 39, 39, 41, 380.4580.648×215partly
Sign shuffleSwaps excite and inhibit214.2 ± 43.27268, 188, 191, 253, 1712.514257.637×60,501runaway
Gain check on degree-preserving shuffles 3–5 (1 and 2 Oct)As degree-preserving, with every synapse ×1.5 to ×30 at every gainshuffle 3 ×1.5: 0, shuffle 3 ×2: 0, shuffle 3 ×2.5: 0, shuffle 3 ×3: 0, shuffle 4 ×2.5: 0, shuffle 5 ×2.5: 000.37×, 0.50×, 0.73×, 1.74×, 1.76×, 2.12×193, 349, 709, 4,257, 2,776, 4,104not matched on 3 shuffles: ×2.5 put shuffle 3 within ±30% of the real activity (10,138 spikes), shuffles 4 and 5 above it

Notes fixed at the source

The controls data for our 1 Oct test said "Gain-matched arm: not reached (clock cut)" and "fewer shuffles than pre-registered (clock cut)". Both were stale: the gain arm ran, and all 5 pre-registered shuffles per arm ran. The data now gives the full gain bracket and says "all 5 pre-registered shuffles per arm ran". Our public copy no longer rewrites these notes.

fly-cartpole: updated to commit 077dcba

We read the author's commits between 0455e2e and 077dcba: same task and metric, the same degree-preserving null and 20 fresh seeds per arm, with both arms under the new training protocol (a posture-shaped reward and 3,000 tuning episodes). Judged like for like, the ledger now uses 077dcba: 392.5 ± 103.1 steps with the real mushroom-body wiring against 390.3 ± 96.4 shuffled (p = 0.48); frozen 18.7, a TD learner 500.0 (the ceiling), random 22.8. Retention 0.994; still no difference, fair and strong. The results file is unchanged at the current head (854fb1d).

Dropped as planned: a narrower boundary null (moved to a later check) and five more shuffles per arm (they could not change the readings).

No scoring rule changed; one display-only field added

Our 1 Oct test scores "mixed, unfair, weak" by the fixed rules, partly because the sign-shuffle brain ignites and so fires MN9 above the real rate. We did not change the effect, fairness or quality rules: only our row would change, a rule tuned now would be fitted to it, and "unfair" is the rule doing its job while the gain arm is unmatched.

Instead every ledger arm gained two display-only fields: activity_ratio (whole-brain activity, null ÷ real) and activity_class (reduced below 0.5, comparable 0.5–2, elevated 2–10, runaway above 10, or not reported). They never enter any score. Values: our fair test, degree-preserving 0.291 reduced, weight shuffle 0.388 reduced, sign shuffle 257.6 runaway, boundary-preserving 0.648 comparable; our body test, degree-preserving 0.818 comparable. All 95 other arms: not reported, because no other source reports network activity and we did no new hunting. An activity-aware rule could be adopted later only through a pre-registration made before the data it judges, or once at least 3 studies not made by us report network activity; it would then apply to every row, with before and after counts published.

What people argued about this week

Window: new items and new attention since 1 Oct 2026, 11:00 UTC. The promotion rule is unchanged: a specific, checkable claim about fly-brain-driven behaviour, new attention (for example 20,000 or more new views on a video), and no verdict yet; at most 2 claims.

Lead scan of 2 Oct 2026 (decision written at 09:47 UTC).
SourceQueriesHitsResult
Hacker News stories and comments6 / 63 / 47No fly-brain story
Google News (7 days)5271 in the window (MaleCNS and Doom coverage): no new claim
Reddit40Blocked (HTTP 403), as before
Dataset pages6–No new release
GitHub search1892 repositoriesNone with 20 or more stars (maximum 3)
YouTube, newest first17259New uploads all under 1,400 views
YouTube, most viewed this week10, including two new: "fly brain walking", "fly brain body simulation"81 (50 unique)Terraria +24,664; explainers; the two walking queries found only videos under 200 views
YouTube watch pages530Rate-limited (HTTP 429) from the first request; view counts were read from the search pages

Re-checks: Gorilla Tag 623,504 views (+95,748; verdict U, no code); the Roblox fight 141,595; "Fly's Brain Played Video Games" 267,918 (+53,607; an explainer with no single checkable claim, not promoted); "THEY TRAPPED A FLY'S BRAIN" 152,904; FlyLeno's stream 44,716; the Rainbow Six short 4,754. No widely seen "fly brain learned to walk" video appeared this week.

Verdicts

Terraria: B

"I put a fly's brain into Terraria. And tried to train it" (Russian title; George Ostrobrod, uploaded 29 Sep 2026; 28,244 views on 2 Oct). Code: gitlab.com/wdf.gost/terraria-wdf-fly-brain, MIT, read at commit 9052966d of 26 Sep 2026, three days older than the video.

  • What runs: the MaleCNS v1.0 connectome (166,700 neurons, 25,088,107 signed connections; the input files' checksums are enforced) as a sparse spiking model with adaptation, with reward-modulated plasticity driven by the body's own energy, water and harm signals.
  • What a person chose: which sensory neuron groups receive the game's light, smell, touch, pain and balance (the author calls the receptor assignment "approximate"), and how motor neuron groups are decoded into turning, walking, feeding, grip and adhesion. Grip and adhesion have documented fall-backs when the graph lacks those neurons.
  • Result: we recomputed the author's 176-life log: mean lifespan 278.4 s and the quarter means match the author's report; the median rose from 102.8 s (first 44 lives) to 163.3 s (last 44; our one-sided permutation p = 0.037, Spearman ρ 0.11).
  • Control: none, as the author's own report says ("no fixed-seed control organism with plasticity disabled"). So the "learning" is not separated from luck or from changes to the world during the run.

Row updates

  • Gorilla Tag 623,504 and Roblox fight 141,595 views; both stay U.
  • FlyDoom (eganeganegan) returned "not found" on 1 and 2 Oct; the record is kept with its last catalogued commit.
  • The fly.ai kernel behind fly-plays-games gained NFT breeding and arena code only; no re-grade.
  • Is it real? gained a "Who does the walking?" section near the embodied claims. It changes no grade.

Tracking

  • All 100 entries re-checked: 88 repositories by git ls-remote (6 changed, 81 unchanged, 1 gone); every try, code and paper link checked (98 ok, 2 redirects, 3 blocked by rate limits, 1 not found: FlyDoom).
  • Changed repositories: acamilo-flybrain, Brain Runners, Doodle Fly and fly-naf (commit subjects only, no result change seen); fly-cartpole (above); the fly.ai kernel (NFT code only).
  • All 51 videos available. Changes: 4 new entries, 2 material and 7 minor updates, 0 removed.

New entries

Four entries added on 2 Oct 2026 (target 2–4, cap 5), each graded from its files.
EntryGradeWhy
Digital Fly in TerrariaBThe promoted verdict above. MaleCNS v1.0 drives a Terraria body with plasticity; no control.
FlyGym + BANC v888 bridgeCA FlyGym 2.1.0 derivative (not a download lure) with its own bridge scripts. The descending neuron it reads gets no synaptic input inside its sub-circuit, so its rate, and the one walking gain it sets for all six legs, comes from a fixed current, not the connectome; the closed-loop version drives a hand-written sine wave. No control. The closest existing design to ours; the differences are listed in our body results.
How much of fly walking is written in the wiring?BCode for a submitted manuscript comparing real MaleCNS and MANC leg networks with six families of rewired networks under coded decision rules. No results are public yet, so the grade is provisional; it could become A when they are.
Hidden attractor in the Shiu et al. modelAPre-registered plans and raw results: after a strong sugar pulse about 8,100 neurons stay active for 10 s in Shiu et al.'s own Brian2 code (3 seeds, identical in a re-implementation), and none without the pulse.

Every new entry carries controls and wiring_effect fields (all "none" and "not tested"). Excluded: a Terraria mod by the same author with no fly brain. Deferred a second time for lack of time: three small repositories (a chess fly, a FlyLeno variant and a poker fly), plus about 30 new repositories with 0–3 stars from this week's sweep.

51 videos re-checked, all available. Added 1: the Terraria fly, the creator's own upload (28,244 views, grade B from the catalogue). Not added: the creator's companion stream (3,072 views) and explainers that name no single entry. Thumbnails are unchanged while the owner decides between platform thumbnails and our own posters. We did not watch the new video (no browser this check).

Build your own and the package check

The beginner pins still install for Python 3.11: Brian2 2.9.0 pinned (latest 2.10.1), numpy 2.3.5 (latest 2.5.3), pandas 2.3.3 (latest 3.0.6); the lock installed cleanly in 36 s. FlyGym 2.1.0 is still the latest release and needs Python 3.12 to 3.14. The latest uv is 0.12.22; we used 0.9.0, the version of our first FlyGym test. The guide's deeper path "Add a body" is now tested, with the TMPDIR note and the FlyGym 2.0 interface warning.

Method

  • Brain: Python 3.11 environment from the Build your own lock file; our fair-test worker extended with a stimulus choice and the descending-neuron recording (spike monitoring does not change the dynamics).
  • Body: Python 3.12 FlyGym environment, MUJOCO_GL=disable; our drive maker (the mapping) and body runner, then a standard-library analysis script.
  • Tracking and catalogue: git ls-remote, link checks run twice (a rate-limit answer now counts as blocked, not broken), video checks, GitHub metadata for the 3 new GitHub repositories, a catalogue diff and schema validation (projects 104, videos 52, controls: 0 errors each).
  • Lead scan: news, GitHub and YouTube scans; view counts from the search pages because watch pages were rate-limited.
  • GitHub API: 3 core calls (59 left at the start, 57 at the end) and 18 paced search calls.
  • Memory: one worker at a time; brain trials peaked at 0.77 GB, body runs at 0.27 GB; the shared machine peaked at 1.94 GB; scratch peaked at 805 MB and was deleted at the end. No out-of-memory kill.
  • Timing: one 48-minute session; every go/no-go passed and no time cut fired. Three optional extras were not done (flyvis numbers from the papers, a star refresh and a gap-filling gain trial).

Limitations

  • The body result holds for one stimulus, one hand-made mapping and 1 s of open-loop walking (above).
  • YouTube watch pages refused every request today, so video descriptions were not re-read; the Terraria claim quotes the description read on 1 Oct. X, TikTok and Reddit cannot be searched without a login.
  • fly-walking-wiring's controls cannot be inspected because no results are public, so its B is provisional.
  • The Terraria verdict rests on code older than the video.

Next

  • Next check (no brain simulations planned): the flyvis and browser-demo checks, a re-read of fly-naf's new vision mapping, triage of the deferred repositories, and whether fly-walking-wiring's results appear (then it gets a ledger row).
  • Later: a pre-registered per-shuffle gain search for the fair test; the narrower boundary null; and a second body test where wiring could matter, for example a mapping without the 1.2 cap or P9 at lower rates, plus a closed loop, written down before it runs.
  • Gorilla Tag keeps growing (623,504 views) and still shows no code.

Main sources

Search published pools, pages, reports, and evidence.