Resource-constrained edge integration

RAV Edge Kit

A proposed reference integration profile for software-in-the-loop (SITL), hardware-in-the-loop (HIL), and approved partner-bench review. The Edge Kit name does not represent an available hardware product.

Research question

What evidence is needed to move a selected autonomy candidate from software evaluation toward representative edge hardware? RAV Edge Kit is a proposed integration and evidence profile, not an available hardware kit or a claim about a particular computer or airframe. It would make compute assumptions, timing budgets, adapters, deployment artifacts, health signals, and rollback steps visible before a partner-platform demonstration is attempted.

Decision frame

Use when — Profile a selected candidate against representative compute, I/O, and recovery constraints.
Begin with — A pinned candidate build, representative resource budget, approved I/O, and named ownership.
Target decision output — Target outcome: a reproducible partner-bench package with health, deployment, and rollback evidence.
Required reviewers — Software, compute, platform-integration, cyber, safety, and test authorities identified by the partner program.

Public concept status

Internal research concept. No government sponsor, award, contract, measured result, hardware endorsement, or platform release 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 integration-profile concept—not a hardware product—with a local SITL, HIL, and partner-bench gate explorer
Would require before a partner effort — Partner-approved representative compute, I/O contract, health evidence, ownership, and rollback criteria
Content updated — 2026-07-31

Prove the integration boundary before a platform demo.

Is intended to support evaluation of selected autonomy candidates within an approved or partner-supplied edge-platform demonstration boundary, without implying flight release or production readiness.

Advance when — Resource assumptions, I/O behavior, health checks, ownership, deployment, and rollback are reproducible on the approved bench.
Hold or revise when — Representative constraints are missing, the adapter changes the mission contract, or recovery cannot be demonstrated.

Move from software to representative compute without losing provenance.

RAV Edge Kit is a proposed integration profile, not a hardware product. It would keep resource assumptions, interface contracts, packaging, health evidence, and rollback steps visible as representative hardware enters an approved review path. Proposed scope: these responsibilities describe an intended research frame, not completed features, measured performance, or an operational capability.

Compute and timing profiles

Define how candidate resource use and latency would be measured against an explicitly documented representative budget.

SITL and HIL evaluation ladder

Preserve the same interfaces while moving from software simulation to representative hardware and I/O.

Partner-platform adapters

Keep mission logic behind an approved interface layer rather than coupling it directly to proprietary platform details.

Reproducible delivery

Capture build inputs, software inventory, configuration, health checks, deployment steps, and rollback evidence.

Inspect the evidence gate for each integration environment.

Select an environment to see the qualitative gate posture. The ladder is illustrative and does not represent a tested device or flight release.

Software in the loop

Candidate software would run against controlled simulated inputs and reference interfaces in an approved evaluation. Illustrative target posture: Software-only evidence gate The candidate remains behind reference interfaces while repeatability and diagnostics are reviewed. Decision question: Are behavior, timing, configuration, and diagnostics repeatable before hardware enters the path? Reviewers inspect: Execution timing; Interface conformance; Configuration-sensitive behavior. Planned evidence: Proposed pinned-build record, interface trace, timing-review format, configuration record, and repeatability checklist.

Hardware-in-the-loop (HIL)

The same candidate would be packaged for representative compute with emulated or approved I/O. Illustrative target posture: Representative-compute evidence gate Approved hardware and I/O would enter a future review path while constraints and recovery behavior remain under review. Decision question: Where do compute, thermal, timing, or interface constraints change the integration decision? Reviewers inspect: Resource headroom; End-to-end latency; Health and recovery behavior. Planned evidence: Proposed hardware profile, I/O trace, resource record, fault-response notes, and open constraints.

Partner bench

Approved adapters would connect the packaged candidate to a partner-supplied integration environment. Illustrative target posture: Partner-bench demonstration gate Adapter ownership, deployment, health checks, handoff, and rollback are reviewed together. Decision question: Can ownership, configuration, health, and rollback boundaries be demonstrated clearly? Reviewers inspect: Adapter responsibility; Deployment repeatability; Rollback and operator handoff. Planned evidence: Proposed integration checklist, build inventory, deployment record, health evidence, and rollback rehearsal.

Carry the same contract from SITL to a partner bench.

Each proposed transition would retain build inputs, configuration, resource assumptions, interface traces, health signals, and a rehearsed rollback path.

Profile the candidate

Record compute, memory, timing, I/O, configuration, and diagnostic assumptions in software. Planned review artifact: Proposed candidate resource and interface profile

Package reproducibly

Pin build inputs, runtime configuration, software inventory, health checks, and rollback steps. Planned review artifact: Proposed reviewable deployment package

Connect representative I/O

Approved hardware and adapters would enter a future review path while preserving the defined mission interface. Planned review artifact: Proposed HIL integration record

Demonstrate the boundary

Rehearse deployment, health, ownership, operator handoff, and rollback with the partner team. Planned review artifact: Proposed partner demonstration evidence

Proposed edge-integration record

Illustrative only · verification is not claimed.

Proposed record · synthetic values · no hardware product

This synthetic record demonstrates a proposed way to carry package identity, interface assumptions, health evidence, and rollback ownership across integration gates.

Illustrative structure only. Every package, bench condition, and disposition below is synthetic or proposed; no hardware was selected or tested and no performance result is represented.

Record — Synthetic identifier SYN-EDGE-001
Candidate package — Proposed synthetic package with no executable or production connection
Bench boundary — Proposed representative environment with no selected or endorsed hardware
Synthetic SITL planning gate — Proposed gate: Proposed software-in-the-loop input contract; Synthetic evidence entry: Synthetic manifest and interface-trace entries; Proposed disposition: Proposed hold until repeatability criteria are approved
Synthetic HIL planning gate — Proposed gate: Proposed hardware-in-the-loop resource and I/O budget; Synthetic evidence entry: Synthetic health, timing, and recovery entries; Proposed disposition: Proposed hold until representative constraints are supplied
Synthetic partner-bench gate — Proposed gate: Proposed adapter, ownership, and access boundary; Synthetic evidence entry: Synthetic deployment and rollback-record entries; Proposed disposition: Proposed stop unless partner authority accepts the bounded review
Synthetic planning artifact only. It proposes a review record and does not establish hardware suitability, timing performance, bench acceptance, flight release, or production readiness.

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 integration-profile brief

Represented on this page. Proposed SITL-to-HIL gates, resource questions, adapter boundary, delivery record, and teaming split. What it establishes: The intended integration path—not a selected computer, airframe, or hardware endorsement.

Illustrative gate explorer

Local concept UI. Synthetic SITL, HIL, and partner-bench postures with review questions and planned evidence. What it establishes: How a gate review could be structured—not tested hardware, timing, thermal, or I/O results.

Representative bench record

Partner-gated. Would require approved compute, I/O, health criteria, ownership, deployment access, and rollback authority. What it establishes: Nothing on this public page; no HIL result, bench acceptance, or platform release is represented.

Keep mission software behind an approved adapter.

A selected candidate is packaged against a representative budget and partner-owned I/O contract without coupling public concept code to a specific airframe.

Input requiring approval — Selected autonomy candidate
Input requiring approval — Representative compute budget
Input requiring approval — Approved partner I/O contract
Planned review output — Proposed resource and timing profile
Planned review output — Proposed reproducible deployment artifact
Planned review output — Proposed health and rollback evidence

Pin: Freeze the candidate build

Record source inputs, dependencies, configuration, interfaces, and software inventory.

Profile: Exercise in SITL

Review timing, resource assumptions, diagnostics, and interface behavior in software.

Package: Move to representative compute

Preserve the contract while approved hardware and emulated or approved I/O would enter a future review path.

Rehearse: Demonstrate health and rollback

Show deployment, ownership, operator handoff, and reversal on a partner bench.

A bench profile is not a platform or flight release.

RAV Edge Kit is a proposed integration profile, not an available hardware product, endorsement, or certification of any specific hardware.
Partner-platform access, interfaces, safety controls, and test authority remain partner supplied and approved.
No public page represents flight release, operational readiness, or production deployment.

Use Edge Kit when the next risk is integration, packaging, or rollback.

A bounded effort identifies representative compute, approved I/O, health and recovery evidence, ownership, and the authority for any later platform demonstration. Is intended to support evaluation of selected autonomy candidates within an approved or partner-supplied edge-platform demonstration boundary, without implying flight release or production readiness. Proposed RavDevOps scope: Reproducible packaging pattern, resource-assumption profile, health and rollback checklist, and adapter-boundary documentation. Partner supplies: Representative compute, approved I/O, platform constraints, integration access, operator handoff, and test authority. Closeout decision: A documented decision to stop, revise the package, or authorize a bounded partner-bench demonstration.

Compute and platform partners defining representative resource constraints
OEMs or primes providing an approved integration and test boundary
Program teams planning a traceable SITL-to-HIL transition ladder

Discuss RAV Edge Kit teaming