Vehicle-local decision logic
Keep bounded mission state and policy close to the participating platform instead of assuming a continuous central link.
Distributed mission autonomy
RAV Autonomy Core
A proposed vehicle-local mission layer for planning and coordination across connected, degraded, partitioned, and rejoined network conditions.
Research question
How should vehicle-local mission logic continue, bound its behavior, and reconcile state when network conditions change? RAV Autonomy Core is intended to separate mission reasoning from platform-specific flight control, radios, sensors, and operator consoles. The research focus is the behavior and evidence at that seam: what stays local, what is shared, what happens during a partition, and how state is reconciled after contact returns.
Decision frame
- Use when — Define useful vehicle-local behavior when shared coordination cannot be assumed.
- Begin with — Approved mission state, ownership rules, fallback limits, and a partner platform boundary.
- Target decision output — Target outcome: a mission-interface contract with connected, partitioned, and rejoin decision traces.
- Required reviewers — Mission-software, platform, operator-interface, safety, and test authorities named by the partner program.
Public concept status
Internal research concept. No government sponsor, award, contract, measured result, or operational deployment is represented.
RAV is Raven Development Operations' internal working label, not a government program name, sponsor designation, fielded system, or readiness claim.
Public, unclassified overview only. Do not submit classified information, CUI, export-controlled data, source-selection information, or proprietary interface details through this website.
- Current public state — Public mission-layer concept with a local connected, partitioned, and rejoin state explorer
- Would require before a partner effort — Partner-approved mission contract, fallback limits, reconciliation rules, and platform authority
- Content updated — 2026-07-31
Separate mission reasoning from platform authority.
Would separate mission logic from platform-specific flight, sensor, radio, compute, and operator integrations so each boundary could be evaluated independently.
- Advance when — Local authority, shared-state ownership, fallback limits, and reconciliation behavior are explicit and reviewable.
- Hold or revise when — A network loss creates undefined authority, hidden state conflict, or behavior outside the approved mission boundary.
Define what stays local, what is shared, and when to stop.
The Autonomy Core concept focuses on the seam between mission reasoning and partner-owned flight, sensing, communications, and operator systems. Proposed scope: these responsibilities describe an intended research frame, not completed features, measured performance, or an operational capability.
Collaborative planning
Exchange compatible intent, task, and state information when approved communications paths permit.
Partition-aware behavior
Define useful local behavior, explicit limits, and fallback conditions for interrupted coordination.
Platform adapter boundary
Define proposed mission interfaces while partner-owned flight, safety-critical, sensor, radio, and operator-control systems retain and enforce their authority.
Trace local, shared, and reconciled state across a network change.
Select a coordination condition to review the intended state posture and the questions a program team would need to resolve.
Connected mission
Participating nodes can exchange the approved mission-state and coordination messages. Illustrative target posture: Local and shared mission state are aligned. The review focuses on consistency, ownership, and operator-visible changes. Decision question: Do local and shared plans remain consistent enough for the bounded mission objective? Reviewers inspect: Intent and task consistency; Conflicting assignments; Operator-visible state changes. Planned evidence: Proposed interface trace, decision log, task-state comparison, and documented coordination assumptions.
Partitioned team
One or more nodes temporarily lose access to shared coordination state. Illustrative target posture: Shared state is unavailable; local limits become primary. The review isolates what continues, what defers, and what must stop. Decision question: What useful local behavior continues, and where must the system stop or defer? Reviewers inspect: Local policy activation; Constraint enforcement; Deferred or abandoned work. Planned evidence: Proposed partition timeline, local decision trace, limit-state record, and reviewer notes.
Network rejoin
Previously separated nodes restore an approved communications path with divergent state histories. Illustrative target posture: Divergent histories are compared before state is merged. Conflicts remain visible until rules or a named human authority resolve them. Decision question: How are state differences surfaced and reconciled without hiding conflict? Reviewers inspect: State reconciliation; Duplicate or stale assignments; Human handoff conditions. Planned evidence: Proposed pre-rejoin snapshots, reconciliation trace, conflict record, and resulting mission state.
Expose divergence instead of hiding it behind a clean demo.
The evidence path preserves local decisions, shared-state assumptions, conflicts, deferrals, and the conditions that require operator handoff.
Bound the mission interface
Define the minimum mission state, commands, events, ownership rules, and safety limits. Planned review artifact: Proposed versioned mission-interface contract
Exercise local behavior
Trace decisions under connected and intentionally degraded coordination conditions. Planned review artifact: Proposed decision and state-transition record
Test reconciliation
Restore contact and inspect divergent state, conflicts, deferrals, and handoff requirements. Planned review artifact: Proposed partition and rejoin evidence
Prepare an adapter
Map only approved mission interfaces to a partner-supplied platform boundary. Planned review artifact: Proposed integration contract and open-risk list
Proposed mission-state authority matrix
Illustrative only · verification is not claimed.
Proposed contract view · synthetic values · no authority granted
This synthetic matrix demonstrates a proposed way to name state ownership, partition behavior, and unresolved human authority before an interface is approved.
Illustrative structure only. Every state, owner, and disposition below is synthetic or proposed; no mission system is connected and no behavior has been tested.
- Contract — Synthetic identifier SYN-CORE-001
- State scope — Proposed synthetic mission-intent, task, and coordination state only
- Conflict rule — Proposed retention of synthetic divergent histories until a named human owner resolves them
- Synthetic mission intent — Proposed state: Proposed bounded goals and constraints; Synthetic owner: Synthetic named operator owner; Proposed partition posture: Proposed read-only local copy with no expanded authority
- Synthetic task assignment — Proposed state: Proposed task identifier and limits; Synthetic owner: Synthetic shared-coordinator owner while available; Proposed partition posture: Proposed defer-or-stop posture outside documented local bounds
- Synthetic reconciliation conflict — Proposed state: Proposed divergent state marker; Synthetic owner: Synthetic human resolution owner; Proposed partition posture: Proposed visible hold with no automatic merge
- Synthetic planning artifact only. It proposes an ownership discussion and does not grant control authority, validate reconciliation, or represent safety approval.
Separate what exists today from what a program would need next.
This register distinguishes public concept material from evidence that depends on an approved partner effort.
Public mission-layer brief
Represented on this page. Proposed state ownership, local-versus-shared responsibilities, interface boundaries, and transition questions. What it establishes: The intended mission-layer contract—not implemented flight, sensor, radio, or operator authority.
Illustrative state explorer
Local concept UI. Synthetic connected, partitioned, and rejoin states with qualitative review questions and evidence targets. What it establishes: How divergence could be reviewed—not live network behavior or tested reconciliation.
Partner mission contract
Partner-gated. Would require approved state schemas, ownership, fallback limits, platform interfaces, and test authority. What it establishes: Nothing on this public page; no approved platform adapter or operational authority is represented.
Make ownership explicit at every message and state transition.
Mission intent enters through an approved contract. Local policy, coordination messages, reconciliation, and partner adapters remain separately reviewable.
- Input requiring approval — Mission goals and constraints
- Input requiring approval — Partner state and event interfaces
- Input requiring approval — Approved coordination messages
- Planned review output — Proposed bounded local decisions
- Planned review output — Proposed intent and task updates
- Planned review output — Proposed decision and reconciliation traces
Intent: Receive mission bounds
Accept approved goals, constraints, ownership rules, and operator-visible limits.
Local: Apply vehicle-local policy
Continue only the behavior explicitly permitted without continuous shared state.
Share: Exchange coordination state
Publish compatible intent, task, and state messages when an approved path exists.
Reconcile: Surface state conflict
Compare divergent histories and hand unresolved authority back to the named owner.
Safety-critical control remains partner-owned and enforced at the interface.
- The proposed mission layer would not own or bypass partner flight control, safety-critical control, or operator authority.
- Any degraded-network behavior would require explicit bounds from a program owner and the partner platform safety authority.
- No public demonstration represents operational approval, autonomy certification, or a fielded capability.
Use Autonomy Core when local-versus-shared responsibility is unresolved.
A bounded effort names the mission state, coordination contract, fallback limits, reconciliation rules, and the partner authority for platform integration. Would separate mission logic from platform-specific flight, sensor, radio, compute, and operator integrations so each boundary could be evaluated independently. Proposed RavDevOps scope: Mission-state contract pattern, local policy and reconciliation concept, trace structure, and an adapter-boundary brief. Partner supplies: Approved mission intent, state and event interfaces, fallback authority, safety limits, coordination rules, and test authority. Closeout decision: An agreed local-versus-shared responsibility map and a decision on whether a partner adapter should be prototyped.
- Mission-software teams defining local-versus-shared autonomy responsibilities
- Platform integrators that need an explicit adapter and ownership boundary
- Test partners evaluating connected, partitioned, and rejoined behavior