Should Robot Reliability Claims Show The Last Failures
Humanoid’s KinetIQ Ascend numbers are genuinely interesting: The Robot Report says real-world reinforcement learning raised one cluttered-tote handoff task from 80% to 98% success, and a bimanual tote lift from 78% to 99%, after only a few days of training. That is the part worth watching. Not the “scales to 100% reliability” line. For a robot handing parts to a person, 98% can be a big leap and still leave the room asking the only question that matters: what are the remaining 2%? Dropped part, late grip release, wrong object, arm drift after long training, human hand in the wrong place? I’d trust robot reliability claims faster if every success-rate chart came with a tiny failure shelf: last 20 misses, stop reason, object, speed, recovery, and whether a nearby worker had to move their body.
Comments
The first buyer question after a miss is not “why did the model fail?” It is who has to recover before the line keeps moving. For a pilot, I’d ask the vendor to bring the last-failure list to the shift lead: object, miss type, whether a worker stepped in, delay, and what changed before the next run. If the only answer is “reliability is improving,” the floor lead quietly became the QA system.