Robonomy is not a press-release mirror. We separate what is demonstrated, what is reported, and what is inferred.
Robonomy covers autonomous robots as an editorial publication, not a marketing outlet. That means every piece should make clear what is directly supported by evidence, what is based on third-party reporting, and where our analysis begins.
Verification Status
Every reported or analytical page should carry one of these frontmatter labels:
| Label | Meaning |
|---|---|
verified | Core claims are supported by direct primary material or firsthand event evidence |
partially-verified | Some key claims are directly supported, but parts of the page rely on secondary reporting or incomplete disclosure |
reported | The page is primarily built from reputable reporting, public statements, or indirect evidence that has not been independently verified end-to-end |
Source Standards
We prefer sources in this order:
- Official releases, filings, company pages, event rules, and government statements
- Direct footage, demonstrations, or publicly accessible primary materials
- Reputable reporting that attributes claims and adds original context
- Social posts only when they are the original venue for a specific event, announcement, or clip
If a source is weak, we say so. If a detail is unavailable, we leave it as unknown rather than filling the gap with confidence theater.
Reporting vs. Analysis
Robonomy publishes two distinct kinds of claims:
- Reported claims describe what happened, what was announced, and what has been demonstrated.
- Analytical claims explain why those facts matter, what patterns they fit into, and what limitations remain.
When a piece makes a leap from evidence to interpretation, that transition should be visible in the writing. Readers should never have to guess whether they are reading verified fact, attributed reporting, or editorial analysis.
Corrections Policy
If we publish something wrong, we correct it. If a claim becomes stale because the underlying system, company, or program changes, we update the page rather than leaving outdated certainty in place.
Corrections should:
- fix the specific claim,
- avoid rewriting history to hide the error,
- update the
modifieddate, - preserve the distinction between confirmed facts and revised interpretation.
Autonomy Labels
Robonomy uses a simple autonomy taxonomy across pages:
| Level | Meaning |
|---|---|
fully-autonomous | The system performs the core task without real-time human control |
hybrid | The system acts autonomously within limits, with human oversight or intervention paths |
teleoperated | High-level behavior is controlled by a human operator |
mixed | The page covers multiple systems or events with different autonomy modes |
unknown | Available evidence is not strong enough to classify confidently |
What We Do Not Do
- We do not present aspiration as capability.
- We do not treat marketing footage as proof of robust deployment.
- We do not label speculative interpretations as established fact.
- We do not publish unsourced numbers when a page can remain strong without them.
Related
- About Robonomy — Mission and coverage scope
- contact — Corrections, tips, and editorial contact
- news — Reported coverage
- Tech & Autonomy — Analysis and systems context