Interface & Cartridge Architecture

Automated Inspection uses robots, fixed sensors, machine vision, measurement tools, or computational systems to evaluate Cartridge and interface condition.

Automated inspection may verify:

identity and location;

installation orientation;

alignment marks;

seating and lock position;

dimensional movement;

fastener presence;

surface damage;

corrosion;

cracking;

deformation;

leakage;

abnormal temperature;

vibration;

electrical condition;

marker readability;

obstruction of service access;

mismatch with the Digital Twin.

Every automated inspection method shall define:

inspected feature;

sensor or instrument;

required access and viewpoint;

resolution;

accuracy and uncertainty;

environmental limits;

reference baseline;

acceptance criteria;

false-positive and false-negative considerations;

required human review;

evidence-retention method.

AI-supported visual inspection shall report confidence and model version. A classification such as “no defect detected” shall not be represented as proof that no defect exists beyond the validated detection capability.

Safety-critical rejection or return-to-service decisions shall require the evidence level specified for the relevant Cartridge class. Human or independent verification may remain mandatory.

Automated systems shall compare observations with the correct Cartridge version and installed configuration. Use of the wrong reference model shall be treated as an inspection fault.

Inspection data shall update condition records but shall not overwrite earlier evidence. Detected change over time shall remain traceable.

Where a robot cannot safely reach the inspection region, the interface design shall be reviewed for improved accessibility, embedded monitoring, or an approved alternative inspection method.