Problem & risk
Validation alone cannot cover open-world operation. When models propose trajectories, force, or communications, safety cases require deterministic gates, traceable decisions, and independence between the learning system and the final actuation path.
Engage our autonomy safety team for architecture review.
Regulatory context
Safety-critical software (e.g. ISO 26262, DO-178C) and defence AI ethics guidance expect traceable control of automated behaviour and human oversight where required.1
- Align TrigGuard evidence packs to your notified body / authority expectations; we provide decision records, not product certification.
Solution
TrigGuard enforces policy between planning outputs and low-level controllers: PERMIT only when constraints hold; DENY or SILENCE otherwise, with receipts suitable for incident review and assurance.
- Deterministic evaluation for real-time loops
- Separation between model and actuation
- Integration via APIs/SDKs for robotics stacks
Integration points
Typical interfaces: motion planners to controller bridges, fleet command systems, simulation-to-hardware promotion gates, and secure telemetry for human-on-the-loop approvals.
Next steps
Choose how you want to engage—each action logs intent for follow-up when analytics is enabled.
Related reading & programme notes
- Making AI autonomy safe at scale
- Beyond model validation: the need for AI authorisation
- Defence AI ethics and mission assurance
Long-form articles on the content calendar can deep-link here as they ship.