CONTEXT(CLONE)
Sign in

Test the explanation for recurring robot fleet stoppages

For: Warehouse automation engineer or robotics operations lead

Pattern: Adversarial reviewNeeds physical AI: plannedDesigned for 10 to 400 agents
Get early accessSign in to use

The pain today

Mobile robots stop in the same aisles. A favoured explanation, floor markings or a map error, is picked early, and the mission logs and camera clips that could disprove it go unread.

The ask

“I attached the robot mission logs, the onboard camera clips around each stoppage, the site map change log and my hypothesis about the cause. Build the evidence for it, then try to break it with stoppages it does not explain. Show what survives.”

Plain words, as you would say it to a colleague. Edit it to fit your case before you send it.

What you attach or connect

  • Robot mission logs
  • Onboard camera clips around each stoppage
  • Site map change log
  • Written hypothesis

The unit of work

One worker task per one stoppage event: log extract and camera clip.

Why a swarm fits

Each stoppage is examined alone: a short log extract and a short clip. Two teams with opposite briefs read every event, so the stoppages the hypothesis cannot explain are actively looked for.

Not for

Real-time fleet control or safety functions. It reviews recorded missions after the fact.

The decision tree

6 typed decisions, each with an action for every answer

At fixed moments in a run, the engine puts one narrow question to a decision model. The decision model never writes text: it answers yes or no with a probability, picks from listed options, or gives a score, about a small slice of the material. The engine then does exactly what this tree says, which is what makes the run auditable. The thresholds are the template's design values, not measured results.

  1. Planner, while planning

    Scope checkA choice among options

    Before work starts on a unit

    Do the timestamps and location in the log extract match those recorded for the camera clip?

    Sees only: One stoppage's log extract header and its clip's recorded time and location

    Why: Planned: mismatched log and clip would create false evidence for either side.

    • They matchthenAccept
    • They do not matchthenSkip this unit
    • No clip for this eventthenMark unresolved

  2. After workers, the judge checks

    Evidence checkYes or no, with a probability

    After a worker answers

    Do the quoted log lines and the written clip description show the condition the hypothesis says causes stoppages?

    Sees only: Planned design: one hypothesis statement, the quoted log lines and the clip description

    Why: Planned: an explained stoppage must show the claimed condition, not merely occur in the same aisle.

    • Yes: 0.85 or higherthenAccept
    • Unsure: 0.50 up to 0.85thenMark unresolved
    • No: below 0.50thenReject and retry

  3. Evidence checkYes or no, with a probability

    After a worker answers

    Do the quoted log lines and the clip description show a stoppage where the condition named in the hypothesis was absent?

    Sees only: Planned design: one hypothesis statement and the evidence the breaking team cited

    Why: Planned: unexplained stoppages are the evidence that saves a wasted fix.

    • Yes: 0.85 or higherthenAccept
    • Unsure: 0.50 up to 0.85thenMark unresolved
    • No: below 0.50thenReject and retry

  4. Reconciler, while merging

    Conflict checkYes or no, with a probability

    While reconciling

    Does the site map change log record a change to this aisle shortly before stoppages there began?

    Sees only: The map change log entries for one aisle and the dates of its first stoppages

    Why: Planned: a rival cause in the change log is surfaced rather than ignored.

    • Yes: 0.70 or higherthenMark unresolved
    • Unsure: 0.30 up to 0.70thenEscalate to a strong model
    • No: below 0.30thenAccept

  5. Run control, between rounds

    Another round?Yes or no, with a probability

    Between rounds

    Did the last batch of stoppage events change the share of events the hypothesis explains?

    Sees only: Explained and unexplained counts before and after the last batch

    Why: Planned: stops when more events no longer move the picture.

    • Yes: 0.60 or higherthenContinue
    • Unsure: 0.30 up to 0.60thenContinue
    • No: below 0.30thenStop

  6. Accountable person, before anything is settled

    Person decidesYes or no, with a probability

    Before anything is reported as settled

    Would acting on this result mean changing maps, floor markings, robot settings or anything with a safety function?

    Sees only: The report of explained and unexplained stoppages and rival causes

    Why: Planned: the robotics operations lead decides the fix and signs off any safety-relevant change.

    Accountable: The robotics operations lead decides the fix and signs off any change to maps, markings or safety settings.

    • Yes: 0.20 or higherthenAsk a person
    • Unsure: 0.05 up to 0.20thenAsk a person
    • No: below 0.05thenAccept

The fleet: who does what

Model tiers by role, not brands: you choose the models. Strong reasoning models plan and reconcile, small fast models do the wide work, and the judge is a decision model from a different family, so it does not share the workers' blind spots.

  1. Planner

    A strong reasoning model turns the hypothesis into statements each stoppage can confirm or contradict.

    Decisions here:1. Scope check

  2. Workers

    Small fast text workers read log extracts; a perception model for video and images, planned, describes each clip.

    Designed for 10 to 400 agents, one worker task per one stoppage event: log extract and camera clip. Each worker receives only its own unit.

  3. Judge, from a different model family

    A decision model from a different family decides whether each event supports, contradicts or does not bear on the hypothesis.

    Decisions here:2. Evidence check3. Evidence check

  4. Reconciler

    A strong reasoning model reports explained and unexplained stoppages and any rival cause the evidence favours.

    Decisions here:4. Conflict check5. Another round?

  5. Accountable person

    The robotics operations lead decides the fix and signs off any change to maps, markings or safety settings.

    Decisions here:6. Person decides

Checked before anything is accepted

  • Every event verdict cites log lines with timestamps and the clip segment
  • Log and clip must agree on time and location before an event is used
  • Events that contradict the hypothesis are listed first, not buried
  • Events with no clip are assessed on logs alone and marked as such

What comes back

  • Stoppages the hypothesis explains, with evidence
  • Stoppages it does not explain, with evidence
  • Rival causes suggested by the unexplained events
  • Events lacking logs or clips

What to measure

  • Hypotheses revised or dropped after the challenge
  • Recurrence of stoppages after the chosen fix
  • Engineer hours per investigation
  • Cost per stoppage event examined

Names of measures only. No result is claimed for this template.

Templates open in the workspace chat with the ask filled in. Nothing runs until you send it.

Get early accessSign in to use

More in Physical AI and field operations

Check site photos against the construction programme

For: Construction project manager or owner's representative tracking progress across sites

Progress is reported as a percentage in a spreadsheet.

Pattern: Map, verify, reduceNeeds physical AI: planned5 decisionsDesigned for 30 to 800 agents

Roll up drone inspection footage across an asset network

For: Asset integrity manager for overhead lines, pipelines or telecom towers

Drone flights return footage for every span and tower.

Pattern: Hierarchical decompositionNeeds physical AI: planned6 decisionsDesigned for 50 to 3,000 agents

Review plant walkdown video from four specialist angles

For: Site HSE manager or operations manager at a process or manufacturing plant

Walkdowns are filmed but reviewed by one person with one checklist.

Pattern: Specialist panelNeeds physical AI: planned5 decisionsDesigned for 8 to 300 agents