diff --git a/docs/adr/ADR-152-wifi-pose-sota-2026-intake.md b/docs/adr/ADR-152-wifi-pose-sota-2026-intake.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..139d7f78
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/adr/ADR-152-wifi-pose-sota-2026-intake.md
@@ -0,0 +1,98 @@
+# ADR-152: WiFi-Pose SOTA 2026 Intake — Geometry-Conditioned Calibration, External Benchmarks, and the Foundation-Encoder Training Recipe
+
+| Field | Value |
+|-------|-------|
+| **Status** | Proposed |
+| **Date** | 2026-06-10 |
+| **Deciders** | ruv |
+| **Codebase target** | `wifi-densepose-calibration` (geometry conditioning, ADR-151 Stage 2), `wifi-densepose-train` (camera-supervised path, MAE recipe), `wifi-densepose-cli` (benchmark harness), docs |
+| **Relates to** | ADR-151 (Per-Room Calibration), ADR-150 (RF Foundation Encoder), ADR-135 (Empty-Room Baseline), ADR-079 (Camera-Supervised Pose), ADR-027 (MERIDIAN), ADR-024 (AETHER), ADR-149 (AetherArena), ADR-029 (Multistatic) |
+| **Research provenance** | Deep-research run 2026-06-10: 22 sources fetched, 110 claims extracted, 25 adversarially verified (3-vote), 24 confirmed / 1 refuted. Evidence grades per source below. |
+
+---
+
+## 1. Context
+
+A structured survey of the 2025–2026 WiFi human-sensing state of the art was run on 2026-06-10 to answer: *what should RuView integrate next, and does anything published invalidate our current direction?* Every claim below was verified against the primary source by independent adversarial reviewers; **evidence grades distinguish what the papers measured from what they merely claim**. Almost all performance numbers are author-self-reported preprint results — treated here as CLAIMED until reproduced on our hardware.
+
+### 1.1 The five verified findings
+
+**(F1) "Coordinate overfitting" is a named, diagnosed failure mode of camera-supervised WiFi pose — and our ADR-079 pipeline has the exact shape of it.**
+PerceptAlign (arXiv [2601.12252](https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.12252), accepted ACM MobiCom 2026) shows that models regressing CSI directly to camera-frame coordinates memorize the deployment-specific transceiver layout; SOTA baselines degrade to >600 mm MPJPE in unseen scenes. Their fix is cheap: a <5-minute calibration using two checkerboards and a few photos to align WiFi and vision in one shared 3D frame, plus **fusing transceiver-position embeddings with CSI features**. Claimed: −12.3% in-domain error, −60%+ cross-domain error. They release the claimed-largest cross-domain 3D WiFi pose dataset (21 subjects, 5 scenes, 18 actions, **7 device layouts**). *Evidence: improvements CLAIMED (preprint w/ MobiCom acceptance); the failure mode itself is corroborated across the cross-domain literature — and independently by our own ADR-150 data (81.63% in-domain vs ~11.6% leakage-free cross-subject torso-PCK).*
+
+**(F2) An external model named "WiFlow" claims 97.25% PCK@20 with 2.23M params and ships everything.**
+arXiv [2602.08661](https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.08661) (Apr 2026) — spatio-temporal-decoupled CSI pose, 97.25% PCK@20 / 99.48% PCK@50 / 0.007 m MPJPE, 2.23M parameters (~2.2 MB int8). Code, pretrained weights, and a 360k-sample CSI-pose dataset are public under Apache-2.0 ([repo](https://github.com/DY2434/WiFlow-WiFi-Pose-Estimation-with-Spatio-Temporal-Decoupling), Kaggle dataset). *Evidence: artifact availability MEASURED (verified by direct repo inspection); PCK numbers CLAIMED (5-subject, in-domain, self-collected dataset; hardware unspecified; 15 keypoints vs our 17).* ⚠️ **Name collision:** this is unrelated to RuView's internal WiFlow model. In all RuView docs the external model is referred to as **WiFlow-STD (DY2434)**.
+
+**(F3) For CSI foundation encoders, data scale — not model capacity — is the bottleneck, and the tokenization recipe is now known.**
+UNSW's MAE pretraining study (arXiv [2511.18792](https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.18792), Nov 2025) — the largest heterogeneous CSI pretraining run to date (1,320,892 samples, 14 public datasets incl. MM-Fi, Widar 3.0, Person-in-WiFi 3D; 4 devices; 2.4/5/6 GHz; 20–160 MHz) — reports zero-shot cross-domain gains of 2.2–15.7% over supervised baselines, with unseen-domain performance scaling **log-linearly with pretraining data, unsaturated at 1.3M samples**, while ViT-Base adds only 0.4–0.9% over ViT-Small. Optimal recipe: **80% masking ratio, small (30,3) patches** (+4.7% over (40,5) by preserving fine temporal dynamics). *Evidence: MEASURED within-study (ablations verified in body text) but preprint; downstream tasks are classification, NOT pose — pose transfer is a hypothesis. Independently corroborates ADR-150's finding that capacity hurts cross-subject.*
+
+**(F4) Hardware/standards: 802.11bf is finished; Espressif ships official sensing; Wi-Fi 6 AP CSI is reachable.**
+- **IEEE 802.11bf-2025** published **2025-09-26** (verified against the IEEE SA record) — sensing standardization is complete for both sub-7 GHz and >45 GHz, with formal sensing setup/feedback procedures. No ESP32 silicon implements it yet. *Evidence: MEASURED (standards-body record).*
+- **Espressif `esp_wifi_sensing`** (Apache-2.0, v0.1.x, ESP Component Registry): official CSI presence/motion FSM; esp-csi actively maintained (commit 2026-04-22, verified), CSI confirmed across ESP32/S2/C3/S3/C5/C6/C61. *Evidence: MEASURED (vendor pages + commit log).* ⚠️ A stronger "drop-in compatible with RuView nodes" claim was **REFUTED 0-3** — WiFi-6 parts use a different CSI acquisition config struct.
+- **ZTECSITool** (arXiv [2506.16957](https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.16957), [code](https://github.com/WiFiZTE2025/ZTE_WiFi_Sensing)): CSI from commercial Wi-Fi 6 APs at up to 160 MHz / 512 subcarriers (~5–10× ESP32 subcarrier count; the gain is aperture, not per-Hz granularity). Firmware is gated behind a ZTE serial-number approval. *Evidence: capability CLAIMED by the vendor-authored tool paper; code artifact MEASURED.*
+
+**(F5) Nothing in 2025–2026 does full DensePose UV regression from commodity WiFi.** Keypoint pose remains the field's frontier. Three "wireless foundation model" papers were screened out by full-text inspection (HeterCSI = simulated cellular channels only; the NeurIPS-2025 FMCW pilot = mmWave radar, presence-only; arXiv 2509.15258 = survey, no artifacts). *Evidence: MEASURED (absence verified by full-text inspection of the candidates that surfaced; absence of evidence across the whole literature is necessarily weaker).*
+
+### 1.2 What this means for the ADR-151 calibration system
+
+ADR-151's enrollment protocol captures guided human anchors but does **not** record or condition on transceiver geometry. F1 says that omission is precisely the thing that makes camera-supervised (and, plausibly, anchor-supervised) heads layout-brittle. ADR-151's per-room thesis ("teach the room before you teach the model") is *strengthened* by F1 — PerceptAlign is independent evidence that layout must be modeled explicitly — and the fix composes naturally with our Stage-2 enrollment.
+
+ADR-150's masked-CSI-encoder design is *validated* by F3, which also hands us the hyperparameters and the priority call: **collect/aggregate more heterogeneous CSI before scaling the encoder.**
+
+## 2. Decision
+
+Adopt four changes, ordered by effort-vs-gain:
+
+### 2.1 Geometry-condition the calibration system (extends ADR-151 Stage 2) — ACCEPTED
+
+1. **Record transceiver geometry at enrollment.** `EnrollmentProtocol` gains an optional `NodeGeometry` record per node (position estimate, antenna orientation, inter-node distances where known). Stored alongside the room baseline in the bank; schema-versioned so existing banks remain readable.
+2. **Fuse geometry embeddings into specialist training.** Where a specialist head consumes the (future, ADR-150) backbone embedding, concatenate a small learned embedding of `NodeGeometry` — the PerceptAlign mechanism, transplanted to our per-room banks. Statistical specialists (current) ignore it; LoRA heads (ADR-151 P6) consume it.
+3. **Adopt the two-checkerboard alignment for the camera-supervised path (ADR-079).** When MediaPipe supervision is used, calibrate camera↔WiFi into one shared 3D frame before regression (<5 min, two checkerboards, a few photos). This is the direct defense against F1 for our 92.9%-PCK@20 pipeline.
+4. **Evaluate on the PerceptAlign cross-domain dataset** (21 subjects / 7 layouts) as the MERIDIAN cross-layout benchmark — *gated on confirming its license and downloadability* (open question; repo per paper: github.com/Trymore-lab/PerceptAlign).
+
+### 2.2 Benchmark against WiFlow-STD (DY2434) — ACCEPTED
+
+Pull the Apache-2.0 weights + 360k-sample dataset; run three measurements: (a) their model on their data (reproduce 97.25% claim), (b) their model fine-tuned on our ESP32 17-keypoint eval set, (c) our internal WiFlow on their dataset (15-keypoint subset mapping). Until (a)–(c) are measured, **no RuView doc may cite 97.25% as a comparable number** — different dataset, subjects, keypoints.
+
+### 2.3 Apply the UNSW recipe to the ADR-150 encoder — ACCEPTED (amends ADR-150 §2.3)
+
+- Pretraining corpus: start from the same 14 public datasets (1.3M samples) + our home/MM-Fi frames; data aggregation takes priority over architecture work.
+- Tokenization: 80% masking, (30,3)-class small patches; encoder stays ViT-Small-class (~15M params) — F3 and our own DANN/transformer results agree that capacity does not pay.
+- The published log-linear scaling (unsaturated) sets the expectation: more heterogeneous CSI in, better zero-shot out.
+
+### 2.4 Hardware watch items — ACCEPTED (no code now)
+
+- **802.11bf**: track silicon/certification; revisit when any commodity chipset exposes standardized sensing measurements. Our opportunistic CSI extraction remains the mechanism until then.
+- **esp_wifi_sensing**: benchmark our presence pipeline against the vendor FSM (one afternoon; useful external baseline). Do **not** treat as drop-in (refuted claim).
+- **ZTECSITool AP**: optional high-resolution anchor node for the ADR-029 multistatic mesh — procurement-gated; only pursue if a 160 MHz anchor materially helps tomography.
+
+### 2.5 Explicitly NOT adopted
+
+- No pivot toward "wireless foundation model" papers that don't ship WiFi-CSI artifacts (HeterCSI, FMCW pilot, surveys).
+- No DensePose-UV work item: the field has not demonstrated UV regression from commodity WiFi; keypoints remain our supervised target (F5).
+
+## 3. Consequences
+
+**Positive:** the calibration system gains the one mechanism (geometry conditioning) the 2026 literature identifies as the difference between layout-brittle and layout-robust supervised WiFi pose; ADR-150 gets a measured training recipe instead of a guessed one; we acquire two external benchmarks (WiFlow-STD, PerceptAlign dataset) to keep our claims honest.
+
+**Negative / risks:** geometry records add schema surface to banks (mitigated: optional + versioned); every adopted number is preprint-grade until our own benchmark runs land (mitigated by §2.2's no-citation rule); PerceptAlign dataset license is unconfirmed (gated); name collision risk in docs (mitigated: "WiFlow-STD (DY2434)" naming rule).
+
+**Re-check by 2026-12:** 802.11bf silicon, esp_wifi_sensing maturity (v0.1.x today), and the preprint field (newest source Apr 2026).
+
+## 4. Open questions (carried from the research run)
+
+1. Does WiFlow-STD retain accuracy when fine-tuned on ESP32-S3/C6 CSI (fewer subcarriers, lower SNR), scored on our 17-keypoint set? (§2.2 answers this.)
+2. Is the PerceptAlign dataset downloadable under a usable license, and does the two-checkerboard procedure work with ESP32 transceiver geometry? (§2.1.4 gate.)
+3. Will esp_wifi_sensing evolve toward 802.11bf compliance, replacing opportunistic CSI extraction?
+
+## 5. Source register (evidence-graded)
+
+| Source | Type | Used for | Grade |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| arXiv 2601.12252 (PerceptAlign, MobiCom'26) | preprint+acceptance | F1, §2.1 | CLAIMED numbers; failure mode corroborated |
+| arXiv 2602.08661 + DY2434 repo (WiFlow-STD) | preprint + code | F2, §2.2 | numbers CLAIMED; artifacts MEASURED |
+| arXiv 2511.18792 (UNSW MAE) | preprint | F3, §2.3 | ablations MEASURED in-study; pose transfer hypothesis |
+| IEEE SA 802.11bf-2025 record | standards body | F4, §2.4 | MEASURED |
+| Espressif component registry + esp-csi repo | vendor | F4, §2.4 | MEASURED; "drop-in" REFUTED 0-3 |
+| arXiv 2506.16957 + ZTE repo (ZTECSITool) | vendor preprint + code | F4, §2.4 | capability CLAIMED; code MEASURED |
+| arXiv 2601.18200 (HeterCSI), OpenReview LMufK3vzE5 (FMCW pilot), arXiv 2509.15258 (survey) | preprints | F5, §2.5 (screened out) | MEASURED (full-text inspection) |
diff --git a/docs/adr/README.md b/docs/adr/README.md
index c169786c..bebb2ec8 100644
--- a/docs/adr/README.md
+++ b/docs/adr/README.md
@@ -82,6 +82,7 @@ Statuses: **Proposed** (under discussion), **Accepted** (approved and/or impleme
 | [ADR-149](ADR-149-public-community-leaderboard-huggingface.md) | AetherArena: public spatial-intelligence benchmark on Hugging Face | Proposed |
 | [ADR-150](ADR-150-rf-foundation-encoder.md) | RF Foundation Encoder: pose-preserving, subject/room/device-invariant CSI embedding | Proposed |
 | [ADR-151](ADR-151-room-calibration-specialist-training.md) | Per-Room Calibration & Specialized Model Training (room-first → bank of small ruVector specialists) | Proposed |
+| [ADR-152](ADR-152-wifi-pose-sota-2026-intake.md) | WiFi-Pose SOTA 2026 Intake: geometry-conditioned calibration, external benchmarks, foundation-encoder recipe | Proposed |
 
 ### Platform and UI