Robot-Type Explorer

Strong at

• Defined, repeatable motion in controlled processes
• Wide choice of tooling and integration approaches
• Can separate people from hazardous process steps

Honest limits

• Performance depends on tooling, fixturing and part presentation
• Changeovers can require engineering and validation
• The complete cell, not the arm alone, determines outcome

Example tasks to test

• Machine loading after a representative-part study
• Welding with process controls and guarding
• Handling where loads and presentation are well defined

Strong at

• Compact architectures for suitable work envelopes
• Repeatable motion when parts arrive consistently
• Many established industrial integration patterns

Honest limits

• Part feeding may be harder than the robot motion
• Workspace and orientation capability are architecture-specific
• Published peak cycle data may not represent the complete process

Example tasks to test

• Sorting after supplier testing on representative parts
• Assembly with controlled presentation
• Packaging cells with validated process timing

Strong at

• Clear task boundary when product flow is stable
• Can handle loads selected for the complete system
• Process measures can be defined before procurement

Honest limits

• Product, pallet and separator variation drives complexity
• Low or seasonal utilization changes the business case
• Infeed and downstream flow can constrain the cell

Example tasks to test

• End-of-line case stacking
• Bag handling after gripper trials
• Depalletizing with tested load variation

Strong at

• Collaborative modes can support suitable shared-work applications
• Some tasks can be changed without rebuilding a large fixed cell
• Useful when human and robot contributions are clearly designed

Honest limits

• Tooling and workpieces can create hazards even when the robot limits force
• Safe speed and separation affect process performance
• Every new task or tool can change the risk assessment

Example tasks to test

• Machine tending after whole-application validation
• Assisted assembly with defined handover zones
• Inspection positioning with controlled contact risk

Strong at

• Can repeat validated weld paths on suitable parts
• May support skilled staff on repetitive process steps
• Quality criteria can be tested on representative joints

Honest limits

• A collaborative arm does not remove arc, fume or hot-work hazards
• Fixturing and part consistency remain critical
• Weld qualification and inspection stay process-specific

Example tasks to test

• Repetitive seams after procedure qualification
• Small-batch fixtures proven in supplier trials
• Cells where process hazards are separately controlled

Strong at

• Useful when the task is movement between defined points
• Routes can sometimes change without fixed conveyor infrastructure
• Mission and intervention measures can be observed in a pilot

Honest limits

• Doors, slopes, clutter and handoff design can dominate reliability
• Someone or something must load and unload each mission
• Fleet, charging and recovery procedures are part of the system

Example tasks to test

• Station-to-station tote moves
• Material routes tested in real traffic
• Delivery missions with defined handoff interfaces

Strong at

• Defined point-to-point pallet flows can be measured clearly
• Can reduce manual travel on suitable repetitive missions
• Fleet behavior can be piloted before wider rollout

Honest limits

• Damaged loads and variable interfaces cause interventions
• Mixed traffic and crossings require operational design
• Throughput depends on route congestion and exception handling

Example tasks to test

• Dock-to-buffer missions after route testing
• Line replenishment with verified interfaces
• Transfers between controlled storage zones

Strong at

• Human-form research targets spaces and interfaces built for people
• Pilots can reveal whether a narrow task fits the platform
• May be worth testing when simpler architectures cannot reach the task

Honest limits

• A demonstration does not establish sustained task performance
• Intervention, recovery and supervision must be measured
• Supplier support and application standards need explicit review

Example tasks to test

• Supervised task trials with explicit stop criteria
• Research pilots that publish intervention data
• Evaluation only after simpler machines are considered

Strong at

• Combines travel and manipulation without requiring legs
• Task tests can separate mobility and manipulation failures
• Suitable flat-floor applications may avoid unnecessary mechanical complexity

Honest limits

• Thresholds, lifts, reach and stability constrain the mission
• Combining a base and arm adds interaction and recovery cases
• Shared-space operation needs whole-system validation

Example tasks to test

• Supervised mobile manipulation pilots
• Inspection with controlled access
• Delivery plus handoff trials on representative routes

Strong at

• Can collect remote visual or sensor data from suitable viewpoints
• A repeatable mission can support change comparison
• May reduce some exposure to difficult access tasks

Honest limits

• Weather, airspace, subject access and sensor limits affect feasibility
• Captured data still needs competent interpretation
• Aviation, privacy, property and insurance duties remain

Example tasks to test

• Visual inspection planning with an approved operator
• Thermal or optical surveys with validated interpretation
• Progress documentation under an authorized mission plan

Strong at

• Repeatable capture can support site comparison
• Outputs can be tested against explicit survey requirements
• Remote sensing may complement ground measurements

Honest limits

• Accuracy depends on the full capture and processing method
• Vegetation, reflective surfaces and weather can degrade results
• Qualified survey interpretation may still be required

Example tasks to test

• Site models validated against control points
• Stockpile studies with stated uncertainty
• Repeat surveys under consistent approved conditions