Robotics evidence guide · automated editorial preparation, not expert review
Retain enough robot evidence without keeping everything
Define why each artifact is retained, who can access it and when its disposition is reviewed. Indefinite video retention is not a necessary consequence of traceability.
Evidence and interpretation
Maha’s proposed retention plan applies a privacy-risk lens to evidence delivery. Separate raw media, sanitized derivatives, verification receipts and administrative records. A small public claim can link to a controlled evidence record without publishing the underlying home recording. A digest may remain useful for identity checks after access changes, but it cannot reconstruct deleted evidence. The report must therefore distinguish unavailable evidence from evidence still open to review.
Proposed evidence workflow
- Assign a purpose and access class to each artifact before collection.
- Choose retention and review triggers with the responsible organization; do not invent a universal duration.
- Record authorized deletion or restriction and update downstream availability claims.
Worked illustration
A synthetic audit keeps a sanitized outcome table accessible while removing a raw clip under the agreed policy. The receipt records that the clip is no longer available. It does not continue advertising an independently inspectable video merely because its digest remains.
Limits
No retention service or legally sufficient retention schedule is implemented. Availability and integrity are separate properties.
Sources and review
Locator: About
NIST describes the Privacy Framework as a voluntary tool for identifying and managing privacy risk.
Boundary: The overview is not a legal permission, consent instrument or robot-specific deployment checklist.
Inspection and reuse basis
Selected sections inspected 2026-09-15. Original explanation and link only; no personal records or source text copied. This is not independent expert review of this article.