MANUFACTURING / WORK INTELLIGENCE
Image libraryPracticeEON AI Ventures ↗

Home / Hardware qualification evidence review

Concept training procedure draft

Hardware qualification evidence review

MFG-RB01-P03 · Robot task development cell · 12 steps for inert model familiarisation and reviewed decision practice.

Read the draft before the model.

Concept training procedure draft · D1 · 29 October 2026

For the inert browser model only. Not an approved operating SOP. No physical work, production release or certification is authorised.

Original authored concept; no approved customer/OEM SOP supplied.

MFG-RB01-P03MFG-RB01MODEL 1.0.0-concept
HTML download TXT download JSON download

12 authored steps

A sequence with visible evidence gates.

  1. Confirm equipment and task identity.

    MFG-RB01 · Robot task development cell. Record draft D1 and model 1.0.0-concept.

    Hold if: Identity, source applicability or required evidence is missing or inconsistent.

  2. Confirm the inert training boundary.

    For the inert browser model only. Not an approved operating SOP. No physical work, production release or certification is authorised.

    Hold if: Identity, source applicability or required evidence is missing or inconsistent.

  3. Record the candidate robot and controller as unknown.

    Do not fill in an unprovided make, payload or software version.

    Hold if: Identity, source applicability or required evidence is missing or inconsistent.

  4. List sensing and calibration dependencies.

    The inert scene supplies no live perception evidence.

    Hold if: Identity, source applicability or required evidence is missing or inconsistent.

  5. Review the wrong-pick exception.

    A missing or mismatched part must not be treated as successful execution.

    Hold if: Identity, source applicability or required evidence is missing or inconsistent.

  6. Separate simulation evidence from hardware evidence.

    The public viewer establishes only geometry interaction.

    Hold if: Identity, source applicability or required evidence is missing or inconsistent.

  7. Specify the integrator-owned test environment.

    No production trial is authorised here.

    Hold if: Identity, source applicability or required evidence is missing or inconsistent.

  8. Request a task-specific acceptance rubric.

    The rubric must include failures, recovery and stop conditions.

    Hold if: Identity, source applicability or required evidence is missing or inconsistent.

  9. Capture unresolved limitations in the review record.

    No omitted test is implied to have passed.

    Hold if: Identity, source applicability or required evidence is missing or inconsistent.

  10. Keep deployment authority with the qualified owner.

    This site issues no robot programme or execution approval.

    Hold if: Identity, source applicability or required evidence is missing or inconsistent.

  11. Prepare the evidence record.

    Record observations, source revisions, holds, recovery and missing physical evidence; do not invent a result.

    Hold if: Identity, source applicability or required evidence is missing or inconsistent.

  12. Request qualified review before reuse.

    Keep this draft unapproved until the task owner accepts the sources, geometry, criteria, permissions and revision.

    Hold if: Identity, source applicability or required evidence is missing or inconsistent.

Keep the equipment and source together.

Open Robot task development cell

Referenced components: ROBOT-BASE, ROBOT-SHOULDER, ROBOT-ELBOW, ROBOT-WRIST, GRIP-L, GRIP-R, PICK-NEST, PLACE-NEST.

Required operating inputs: Robot make/controller and limits; gripper/workpiece CAD; sensing; safeguarded cell design; integrator-approved test plan.