Customer control
The allowed response set is defined outside Efferent.
The customer determines which options exist and which authority mode is permitted.
Built first for multi-controller robotics.
When conditions change, the machine needs a plan.
Efferent is a software coordination layer that helps complex machines choose what to do next without replacing their existing controllers.
It adds one whole-machine decision layer above trusted local controllers while preserving customer control, safety logic, operator authority, and approved workflows.
The problem
Every subsystem can be right.
The machine can still fail.
Local controllers can each make the correct local decision while their combined actions produce the wrong whole-machine outcome. The missing function is coordination across those local goals when conditions change.
Changing condition
Drive-motor loss
One local failure changes the tradeoffs for the whole machine.
TractionProtect stability
NavigationProtect route progress
EnergyProtect remaining power
PayloadProtect task state
The coordination gapNo local controller owns the whole-machine tradeoff.
Whole-machine questionWhich customer-allowed response best protects the mission now?
The gapLocal optimization is not whole-machine coordination.
Where Efferent sits
One decision layer above
trusted controllers.
Efferent does not replace the controls already responsible for execution. It evaluates the whole-machine tradeoff and stays inside the authority the customer explicitly grants.
One logical decision layer above trusted controllers
Machine contextState, constraints, operator intent, and allowed responses
Efferent · logical coordinationEvaluate the whole-machine tradeoff and choose only within granted authority
Trusted executionExisting controllers, safety logic, approved workflows, and operator authority
Bounded decision
Coordination stays inside explicit authority.
Efferent recommends or selects only within explicitly granted authority. No silent escalation.
Trusted execution
Existing control remains authoritative.
Existing controllers and safety logic execute; operator authority and approved workflows remain authoritative.
Evidence standards
Current work is internal.
Public results wait for records.
Current work has produced internal simulation evidence. No quantified public performance result is currently published. Evidence standards keep the record and its boundary together until a public result is approved.
Current public evidence state
Boundary visibleInternal simulation
What may be said now
Current work has produced internal simulation evidence. No quantified public performance result is currently published.
Quantified-result truth lock
Quantified results will be published only after the public evidence register, counting rules, baselines, and boundaries are reconciled and approved.
What this does not establish
Internal simulation does not establish independent review, representative-system validation, paid customer proof, deployment, field performance, customer economics, or recurring revenue.
Evidence ruleState the strongest claim directly supported by the record—then stop.
One possible structure
Discuss one costly
coordination failure.
Efferent can discuss one coordination failure with controls, autonomy, or program teams responsible for whole-machine integration risk. A possible evaluation structure would define the failure, current response logic, and evidence criteria before any next step is separately defined and approved.
Define
Name the decision.
Identify the changed condition, the controllers involved, the whole-machine outcome, and the authority boundary.
Compare
Lock the comparison.
Agree the current approach, success criteria, and repeatable scenarios before judging a result.
Evaluate
Compare observed outcomes.
Compare observed scenario outcomes with the locked criteria.
Decide
Expand, revise, or stop.
Review the evidence against the locked criteria and choose whether to validate further, revise the scope, or stop.
Engagement boundaryThis page describes a possible evaluation structure. It does not establish that an evaluation or commercial engagement is available. Any next step would require separate definition and approval.
Discuss the machine you have
Which coordination failure
should the machine survive?
Efferent can discuss one costly failure, the controllers already in place, and the authority boundary that any possible next step would need to respect.
Discuss one coordination failureBegin with the system you have.