Work through a decision: robot vacuum

Harbourview considers a robot vacuum for its children’s area. The device maps obstacles and changes its route. The supplier calls it “AI-powered,” but Mira treats that as a claim to investigate.

1. Task: clean floors while avoiding people, furniture, stairs, and small objects.
2. Alternative: scheduled manual cleaning remains necessary but can cover crowded periods.
3. Evidence: the team tests after hours with cables, mobility aids, dark rugs, low shelves, and simulated sensor blockage.
4. Finding: cleaning is adequate in open areas, but the device catches loose charging cables.
5. Consequence: a cable can damage equipment or create a trip hazard.
6. Control: operate only after a closing checklist; facilities staff can stop it; log incidents and overrides.
7. Decision: approve a limited after-hours pilot in two open areas. Do not operate during public hours. Describe it as an “autonomous floor-cleaning pilot,” not an intelligent caretaker.
8. Reopen rule: pause after any collision with a person or repeated cable incident.

The label is secondary. The bounded evidence justifies only the bounded pilot.

Which finding would justify expanding the pilot? Which would require stopping it?

Build the same eight-part decision for a different automated system. Include a non-AI alternative and one observation that would reverse your recommendation.