What an autonomous safety-monitoring route actually watches for, and why it isn't a catalogue item

An autonomous EHS-monitoring package sounds like a finished product, and it is deliberately not one: it is a research project, billed and built that way for a specific reason.

It is not a safety function, and that is the most important line on this page.

The robot moves through a production area, forms a view about whether what it sees looks safe or unsafe, and reports what it finds to an EHS officer. It does not stop a machine and it does not gate an interlock, and nobody's protection is meant to depend on it having been right. Robotoplus turns down work where a person's safety rests on a robot behaving correctly rather than on a guard or an interlock, and this offering is built to the same principle: it only ever writes a report.

It is billed by the engineering day because the problem has no known answer until someone has looked at the actual data.

That is the commercial arrangement, not a disclaimer added for caution. A fixed price for a fixed result on this class of work means either the job is simpler than it sounds, or the supplier is absorbing a risk they haven't mentioned. 825 EUR per engineering day is the rate, the same one that prices the site's other research-project and consulting work.

The language model behind it is the customer's, not Robotoplus's.

The account, whether that is a cloud provider or a local deployment such as Ollama on the customer's own hardware, is billed directly to the customer, with no margin taken on tokens. For a monitoring system specifically, that choice matters more than it sounds: a model running locally means footage of a production floor never leaves the building, which for a system whose whole job is watching people work is often what decides whether it can be deployed at all.

Three things have to come from the customer before the work can start.

The data itself, in the state it is actually in rather than an idealised sample. A written definition of what counts as unsafe, agreed by someone who will still stand behind it in six months. And a named person who owns the output, because a report nobody reads is the most expensive kind of automation there is.

The honest description of this offering is a research project with a specific safety boundary, not a finished safety product, and both halves of that description are the point rather than a hedge.