Who Authorizes the Cut? A Robot Task from Permission to Recovery
Follow a tomato-pruning job from a grower's permission to the finished inspection: who can start it, what stops it, and what must happen before work resumes.
Streamline Farms · neighborhood food infrastructure
A pruning job starts with a grower's decision: these plants, this cut, this equipment, during this work window. That permission has to survive an interruption and lead to an inspection of the finished work. Buying a robot skill alone does not answer those questions.
Consider an illustrative tomato-pruning task for one bed. The assigned plants, permitted intervention, compatible camera and cutter, and acceptance method form the job definition. The machine cannot enlarge that scope because another plant is nearby.
A state machine the operator can understand
| State | Entry condition | Allowed next step |
|---|---|---|
| Qualified | Crop, tool, sensing, and work conditions match the tested scope | Request authorization |
| Authorized | Responsible operator approves a bed, task, and time window | Start within those limits |
| Executing | Required observations and equipment status remain valid | Continue or pause |
| Paused | Localization, tool relationship, or crop context becomes uncertain | Inspect; do not silently resume |
| Stopped | A hazard or stop request requires equipment shutdown | Follow a tested recovery procedure |
| Awaiting acceptance | Work ends; exceptions and incomplete plants remain recorded | Buyer-approved inspection |
| Accepted or rejected | Inspection resolves the work standard | Close the task or arrange rework |
This describes an intended workflow. Equipment-specific safety engineering must determine the actual protective responses and stopping behavior.
An interruption with consequences
Suppose the camera-to-tool calibration becomes unavailable during execution. The job pauses before further crop work. The task record identifies completed plants, unresolved plants, and the last accepted observation. An authorized person checks the equipment, repeats the required qualification checks, and grants any resume permission.
A generic “continue” button should not erase the reason for interruption. Resumed work remains tied to the updated evidence and scope.
Human supervision has a capacity limit
Do not assume a remote operator can rescue any unsafe motion. Detection delay, communication delay, travel, and equipment stopping time matter. If the hazard develops faster than a person can intervene, protective equipment behavior must address it.
Measure the actual attention required: approvals, alerts, false alarms, cleaning, inspection, and recovery. A person supervising several machines must be able to handle simultaneous exceptions. An economical service cannot treat that work as invisible.
Completion is a separate purchase decision
A command sent is not a plant correctly pruned. Use a buyer-approved inspection with recorded exceptions and damage. Later yield improvement requires a separate biological comparison.
Pruning, harvesting, and accepting food into a kitchen are different jobs. An accepted pruning task does not authorize harvest, establish food-handling acceptance, or reserve ingredients for a household. Each handoff needs a responsible operator and its own completion record before anyone promises the next meal.
The current Streamline reconstruction software does not execute this task. This design clarifies the requirements future work must satisfy. The skill transaction defines what a buyer might purchase; the annual economics includes the supervision bill.
Bring a supervised robotics task whose scope, interruption behavior, and acceptance method can be evaluated together.
Keep exploring.
Read the evidence, try the available tools, or help build the first neighborhood.