# R6.2.5 — Multi-subject occupancy union: N=5 hits 100% for 4 occupants **Status:** clean positive result · **2026-05-22** ## Premise R6.2 / R6.2.3 picked one chest position per zone. Real households have 2-4 occupants who can be in different positions simultaneously. R6.2.5 extends to **union of chest envelopes** across all expected occupant positions. The practical question: does coverage degrade gracefully as occupant count grows? ## Result: graceful saturation at N=5 | Scenario | # zones | Total area | Coverage @ N=5 | |---|---:|---:|---:| | 1 occupant (chair) | 1 | 0.16 m² | **100%** | | 2 occupants (chair + bed) | 2 | 0.40 m² | **100%** | | 3 occupants (chair + bed + desk) | 3 | 0.48 m² | **100%** | | 4 occupants (+ 2nd chair) | 4 | 0.64 m² | **100%** | **N=5 hits 100% coverage for all configurations up to 4 occupants.** The chest-centric small-zone approach (R6.2.3) generalises trivially to multi-subject. ## 4-occupant saturation curve | N | Coverage | Marginal | |---:|---:|---:| | 2 | 14.5% | +14.5 pp | | 3 | 72.9% | +58.4 pp | | **4** | **99.0%** | **+26.1 pp** | | 5 | 100% | +1.0 pp | | 6 | 100% | +0 pp | | 7 | 100% | +0 pp | **Knee returns to N=4** — even for 4 occupants, 4 anchors get us to 99%. This is the **2D chest-centric multi-subject** regime, which is the most demanding 2D configuration tested in the R6 family — and it still hits the knee at N=4. ## Cross-eval: single-subject placement is bad for multi-subject | Placement | Coverage on 4-zone target | |---|---:| | Single-subject-optimised | 70.6% | | Multi-subject-optimised | **100%** | | **Gain from multi-subject optimisation** | **+29.4 pp** | The CLI must accept multiple `--target` arguments and optimise for their **union** — not pick a representative zone and hope. ## Updated CLI recommendation ```bash wifi-densepose plan-antennas \ --room 5 5 \ --target chair_chest 3.7 3.7 0.4 0.4 \ --target bed_chest 2.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 \ --target desk_chest 0.5 2.7 0.4 0.2 \ --target chair2_chest 1.0 4.2 0.4 0.4 \ --freq-ghz 2.4 ``` Output: N=5 anchors hitting 100% coverage of the union. ## R6 family summary (8 ticks + this) | Tick | Configuration | Headline number | |---|---|---:| | R6.2 | 2D body, single-subject | 51% N=5 | | R6.2.1 | 3D body, single-subject | 26% N=2 (mixed-height) | | R6.2.2 | 2D body, N-anchor | 97% N=5 | | R6.2.2.1 | 3D body, N-anchor | 49% N=5 | | R6.2.3 | 2D chest, single-subject | 82% N=5 | | R6.2.4 | 3D chest, N-anchor | 77% N=5 / 82% N=6 | | **R6.2.5 (this)** | **2D chest, multi-subject (1-4)** | **100% N=5** | The R6 family's headline finding: **2D chest-centric + multi-subject + N=5 = 100% coverage**. This is the placement recipe to ship. ## Composes with prior threads - **R6.2 / R6.2.3**: directly extends — single-subject → multi-subject union - **R6.2.2 / R6.2.4**: same saturation behaviour at the multi-subject level - **R14 (empathic appliances)**: V1 lighting / V2 HVAC / V3 attention in households of 2-4 occupants → use multi-subject placement - **R3 / ADR-024**: per-subject identity (AETHER) + multi-subject placement = full empathic-appliance stack - **ADR-105 / ADR-106 / ADR-107**: federation operates on the same model across occupant counts; placement is orthogonal - **R12 PABS**: works per-subject within the union; multi-subject coverage = multi-subject intrusion detection ## Why N=4 knee returns for multi-subject Each chest zone is small (40×40 cm) and fits inside a single Fresnel ellipsoid (which is ~40 cm wide at midpoint of a 5 m link). With N=4 anchors, we get 6 pairwise links — enough Fresnel ellipsoids to cover 4 disjoint 40×40 cm zones without much waste. Beyond N=4 the marginal gain drops to <1 pp. This is *more saturated* than the single-subject R6.2 setup (which used 3 m² bed footprint and couldn't be covered fully even at N=8 with body-centric zones). **Chest-centric multi-subject is the sweet spot for the Fresnel envelope geometry.** ## Honest scope - **2D only** — multi-subject 3D not benchmarked (extension is mechanical; expect N=6 to retain the chest-centric N=5 advantage). - **Static positions** — real occupants move; the union should be conservative (larger than any instantaneous configuration). - **Single 5×5 m geometry** — larger or oddly-shaped rooms need separate benchmarks. - **Greedy + 4 restarts** — global optimum may be 1-2 pp higher. - **4 occupants** — beyond 4-5 the coverage may degrade. Extreme density (e.g. classroom with 20 people) is a different regime. ## What this DOES enable 1. **A clean cap on the placement complexity story**: 4-occupant households are fully sensable at N=5 with multi-subject-aware placement. 2. **A required CLI feature**: support multiple `--target` arguments. 3. **An updated installer recipe**: for households of 1-4, the same N=5 chest-centric placement works. 4. **R6 family closes with a positive result** that ships directly. ## What this DOES NOT enable - Beyond 4-5 occupants — separate regime, not tested. - Time-varying occupancy (people moving between zones) — would benefit from pose-trajectory data (out of scope). - 3D multi-subject — mechanical extension, not done here. ## Final R6.2 CLI surface After this tick, the productisation of R6.2 should support: ``` wifi-densepose plan-antennas --room W H [Z] # 2D or 3D --target NAME X Y W H [DX DY DZ] # repeatable --target-mode {body, chest} # R6.2.3 --freq-ghz F # 2.4, 5.0, 6.0 --n-anchors N # auto-saturation if omitted --restarts K # 4 default ``` This covers the R6.2 / R6.2.1 / R6.2.2 / R6.2.2.1 / R6.2.3 / R6.2.4 / R6.2.5 use cases in a single CLI tool. ~50 LOC over the original R6.2. ## Connection back - **R6 / R6.1**: physical foundation - **R6.2 / R6.2.3**: single-subject body / chest - **R6.2.1 / R6.2.2 / R6.2.2.1 / R6.2.4**: 3D / N-anchor / composition - **R6.2.5 (this)**: multi-subject completes the matrix - **R14**: empathic-appliance deployment recipe is now: N=5 + chest-centric + multi-subject-union targets, with mixed-height anchors for full-body coverage when needed