Independent measurement
A repeatable test or observation published by a party independent of the vendor and operator.
Methodology / Version 0.9
Evidence first.
Unknown stays unknown.
HumanoidUptime evaluates the quality and completeness of public reliability evidence. It does not infer robot performance from missing data.
01 / Evidence ladder
Who says it matters
Operator corroborated
A named deployment site or operator confirms the activity or result. Commercial involvement is disclosed.
Manufacturer reported
The robot maker publishes the value or description. It remains attributed to that maker.
Capability claim
A design intent or maximum capability without a defined field observation and denominator.
Not disclosed
No qualifying value was identified in the reviewed source set. This is not evidence of poor performance.
02 / Definitions
Nine fields, defined
- Runtime hours
- Time the robot is publicly reported to have operated. Calendar deployment duration is not a substitute.
- Availability / uptime
- Available operating time divided by scheduled operating time, using a disclosed definition and observation window.
- Human interventions
- Human actions required to resume, complete or prevent failure, normalized by operating time or task volume.
- MTBF
- Mean operating time between explicitly defined failures.
- MTTR
- Mean elapsed time from a defined failure until recovery or return to service.
- Task output
- Completed units with task definition, attempt count, rejects and assisted cycles where available.
- Energy / charging
- Measured runtime between charges plus charging or swap downtime, preserving the operating scenario and test method.
- Autonomy mode
- Autonomous, supervised, teleoperated or mixed operation, with boundaries stated.
- Fleet size
- Number of robots represented by the reported evidence.
03 / Editorial workflow
From source to record
- 01
Capture
Record the publisher, URL, publication date, access date and source type.
- 02
Atomize
Separate each material claim instead of treating an entire release as one fact.
- 03
Contextualize
Preserve the task, site, time window, fleet size, autonomy mode and limitations.
- 04
Classify
Assign the evidence level that matches who published or corroborated the information.
- 05
Review
Publish the review date and update the changelog when a material conclusion changes.
04 / Comparison gate
When two numbers may be compared
A cross-model performance comparison is admitted only when all five conditions are known and sufficiently aligned.
- the same metric definition and unit,
- a comparable task and environment,
- a stated observation window,
- a known fleet, attempt count or other denominator, and
- a comparable autonomy and intervention boundary.
Failure on any condition blocks the comparison. The disclosure matrix may still compare what is public, but not which robot performs better.
Review the current comparison gate →Corrections
Specific evidence wins.
Corrections are evaluated against the same source and context rules as initial entries. A manufacturer may correct a factual error but cannot convert an attributed claim into independent evidence.
Submit a correction →Limits
Disclosure is not performance.
A sparse record may reflect confidentiality rather than weak reliability. A detailed record may reflect transparency rather than superior performance. HumanoidUptime keeps those ideas separate.