Scope boundary · 20

Novelty is not service value

Separate attention and satisfaction from safety, accessibility, service quality and sustained demand.

Evidence statusService decision framework · site and user validation requiredLast reviewed: 14 August 2026
20

FUURAA thesis

A robot can be delightful and still fail to improve the service.

Engineering map

Turn the title into engineering objects that can be observed, measured and reviewed.

Each layer states the boundary to establish and the evidence needed for the next decision.

01

Attention

Treat photos, conversations and first-use ratings as engagement only.

02

Service

Measure outcomes, access, wait, errors and staff work.

03

Time

Review demand and support load after novelty fades.

Verification questions

Write the questions first, then decide whether a demo, test, pilot or operating record can answer them.

Each question needs an object, conditions, denominator, threshold and accountable decision owner.

  1. 01

    Which metric only represents attention?

  2. 02

    Did service quality improve?

  3. 03

    What happened after repeat use?

  4. 04

    Would it remain worthwhile without novelty?

Evidence to preserve

Enable the next reader to reconstruct conditions, results, failures and the decision.

A conclusion alone loses reviewability; raw records, configuration and exclusions matter too.

  1. 01

    Evidence package 1

    Separated engagement and service metrics

  2. 02

    Evidence package 2

    Repeat-use results

  3. 03

    Evidence package 3

    Continuation decision

Scope boundary

State what this evidence still cannot be generalised to.

Sources and evidence status

Read standards scope, measurement evidence and application conclusions separately.

Source dates and review status remain visible; external sources open in a new tab.