Robot product development path · Gate 01

Requirements, operating boundaries & evidence plan

Turn a promising robot idea into a measurable job, a bounded operating environment and a reviewable evidence plan before selecting hardware.

Decision this gate must answerIs there a valuable job that can be stated, measured and stopped safely inside a defined operating boundary?

Inputs

Controlled information to bring in

  1. 01

    Named users, operators, maintainers and affected people

  2. 02

    Observed workflow, task frequency, exceptions and present baseline

  3. 03

    Environment, payload, reach, speed, runtime and interface constraints

  4. 04

    Initial hazard, privacy, cybersecurity and jurisdiction scan

Outputs

Artefacts that must be reviewable

  1. 01

    Use-case statement and operational design domain

  2. 02

    Prioritised, uniquely identified and testable requirements

  3. 03

    Acceptance metrics with baseline, target and measurement method

  4. 04

    Requirements-to-evidence matrix and an initial risk register

Core work packages

Every workstream leaves traceable evidence.

01

Observe the work

Map normal work, hand-offs, delays, workarounds and rare but consequential exceptions. Do not define the robot from a staged demonstration.

02

Define the operating boundary

State surfaces, lighting, weather, connectivity, people, objects, access controls and conditions that require fallback or stop.

03

Write testable requirements

Separate needs, system requirements and design choices. Give each requirement one owner, rationale, verification method and change history.

04

Plan evidence before building

Assign analysis, inspection, demonstration or test to each consequential requirement; identify independent review where harm could be material.

Gate review

Every answer should carry evidence, not only ‘yes’ or ‘no’.

  1. 01

    Does the use case describe useful work rather than a preferred robot shape?

  2. 02

    Can every success metric be measured under a named workload and time window?

  3. 03

    Are people, foreseeable misuse, maintenance and degraded modes represented?

  4. 04

    Is every consequential requirement linked to a future evidence record?

  5. 05

    Has the team stated what would cause the concept to stop or change direction?

This page can support

  • 01A reviewable concept brief
  • 02A requirement and evidence backbone
  • 03An informed go, change or stop decision

This page cannot replace

  • 01Field observation with intended users
  • 02Qualified safety and regulatory advice
  • 03Approval to expose people or property to an unvalidated machine