android
Enable an AI agent to recognise a humanlike physical robot as an android, assess its embodied and interactive state, and determine which uses or interventions are supported and permitted.
Research draft, second pass
A second pass drafted this model: the structure a model of this thing needs, and what is known about it in the world. The line under this one says how the second half was obtained - researched against sources, or recalled without web access, in which case nothing here was read anywhere and every claim is a lead to verify. Unreviewed either way.
Researched by: Codex + Grok
Purpose and description
Enable an AI agent to recognise a humanlike physical robot as an android, assess its embodied and interactive state, and determine which uses or interventions are supported and permitted.
A humanoid automaton designed to resemble a human in form and, often, in social behaviour, typically distinguished from other robots by anthropomorphic appearance rather than by a specific control architecture.
It can be Classify the embodiment provisionally from evidence of robotic construction and intended human resemblance.; Select supported speech, gaze, expression or gesture channels for an interaction.; Assign a verified physical task under the recorded control mode and supervision conditions.; Permit, constrain or decline a proposed contact interaction using the documented operating envelope.; Pause human-facing activity when expressive behaviour, motion or covering integrity becomes unreliable.; Inspect and service humanlike coverings and mechanisms, then verify the affected capabilities before reuse..
Distinguishing features
Verify that the referent is a physically embodied robot, rather than software named Android or a virtual human.
Look for documented or observable intent to resemble a human; a vaguely human-shaped arrangement alone leaves the boundary with a generic humanoid robot unresolved.
Separate robotic embodiment from a human wearing a costume, operating a prosthesis or carrying assistive equipment.
Establish whether apparent human behaviour comes from actuated robotic mechanisms, rather than a static mannequin; the boundary with animated display figures requires an explicit classification rule.
Record appearance and control mode separately: a humanlike exterior does not demonstrate autonomous behaviour.
Scope
+ Human resemblance in body form, surface appearance, movement and expressive behaviour
+ Physical embodiment, actuation and sensing relevant to humanlike activity
+ The relationship between apparent agency and actual autonomous, scripted or remotely controlled behaviour
+ Human interaction, physical contact and disclosure of robotic identity
+ Embodiment integrity, maintenance and conditions for returning to interaction
- Android operating-system platforms and software ecosystems
- Purely virtual human characters and conversational personas
- Biological humans and the classification of people with prostheses or implants
- General robot taxonomies beyond the boundary needed to identify an android
- Complete specifications of installed AI models, batteries, sensors or actuators
- Facility-wide operating rules and organisational workforce governance
Characteristics
- Evidence of intended human resemblance
- Documented design intent; observed resemblance only; conflicting evidence; unknown Supports classification without treating every humanoid mechanism as an android.
- Humanlike presentation by body region
- For face, head, torso and limbs: lifelike; stylised; visibly mechanical; absent; unassessed Distinguishes the actual embodiment from an assumption that an android must have a complete lifelike body.
- Supported embodiment configuration
- Fixed installation; supported torso; wheeled body; legged body; other documented configuration Prevents human appearance from being mistaken for walking, balancing or whole-body capability.
- Humanlike joint motion envelope
- Verified angular range in degrees and speed in degrees per second for each relevant actuated joint Identifies reachable poses and motion limits that may differ substantially from human anatomy.
- Task-specific control authority
- Autonomous; shared control; teleoperated; scripted; inactive; unknown, recorded per task Determines whether a request can be delegated to the android and who can interrupt its execution.
- Operator and controller assignment
- Links to responsible operator, remote controller and authorised supervisor where applicable Makes responsibility and remote participation explicit when the humanlike presentation conceals them.
- Expressive channel availability
- For gaze, facial expression, gesture and speech: available; degraded; disabled; absent; unverified Shows which social signals the android can produce and where users might misread its responses.
- Physical-contact operating envelope
- Documented permitted contact types, body regions, task conditions and exclusions; otherwise unverified Humanlike hands or skin do not establish that touch, handshakes or close assistance are supported.
- Humanlike covering integrity
- Intact; torn; detached; contaminated; obstructing motion or sensing; absent; unassessed A damaged covering can change both mechanical operation and how people perceive the android.
- Robotic-identity disclosure
- Explicit and accessible; present but ambiguous; absent; unassessed Determines whether people can distinguish the android's humanlike presentation from a human participant.
Also called
Where this came from
wikidata · CC0 1.0
Also registered as vr.tr.android
Drafted structure
Bundle to layer to finding to question, as the second pass will find it: 6 bundles · 11 layers · 11 findings · 21 questions.
Android identity Evidence that this embodiment belongs to the intended android category and the limits of that classification.
The registry has no definition, so an agent must distinguish a working interpretation from a settled category boundary.
Classification evidence
Robotic embodiment and intended human resemblance.
Human resemblance intent
Record the evidence that the robot was designed to resemble a human and distinguish this from resemblance inferred by an observer.
- Which documented design intentions or observed features support calling this embodiment an android? definition
- Where did that classification originate, and does its source describe this particular embodiment? provenance
Neighbouring category boundaries
Unresolved distinctions from humanoid robots, display figures and partial embodiments.
Classification boundary
Record which features establish membership and which leave it provisional.
- What makes this an android rather than a generic humanoid robot, mannequin or animatronic figure under the adopted definition? boundary
- Does a head-only or torso-only version still qualify, and what evidence supports that decision? boundary
Humanlike embodiment The correspondence between human appearance and the body's actual mechanical capabilities.
People and agents may infer human mobility or dexterity from appearance even when the mechanisms cannot provide it.
Body form and motion
Humanlike body regions, support arrangements and verified motion.
Apparent versus actual anatomy
Record how visible anatomy corresponds to actuated joints, support structures and usable movement.
- Which apparently human body parts can actually move, bear loads or manipulate objects? definition
- What verified joint ranges, reach limits and support requirements constrain humanlike poses or movement? measurement
Perception through the body
What the android can sense through or around its humanlike exterior.
Apparent versus actual senses
Distinguish visible eyes, ears and skin from active sensing coverage.
- Which visible humanlike sensory features contain working sensors, and where are the actual sensors located? definition
- Under the intended interaction conditions, where are the verified blind spots or failures to detect speech, proximity or touch? measurement
Agency and expression How behaviour is controlled and what humanlike signals can reliably communicate.
A convincing face, voice or gesture can obscure remote operation, scripted behaviour or limited task competence.
Behavioural control
The source and limits of control for each human-facing activity.
Task control and intervention
Record who or what generates behaviour and how authority can be transferred or interrupted.
- For conversation, facial movement, manipulation and locomotion, which behaviours are autonomous, scripted or remotely controlled? definition
- Who may interrupt or take over each behaviour, and what does the body do if the controlling connection fails? action
Social signal meaning
The evidential limits of gaze, expression, speech and gesture.
Expression and state correspondence
Record whether social signals correspond to sensed events or operational states, without treating simulated expression as evidence of subjective experience.
- Which expressions or gaze behaviours indicate tracked attention or a recorded system state, and which are decorative or scripted? definition
- When speech, gaze and gesture disagree, which signal may an interacting agent rely on before continuing the task? action
Human interaction conditions Conditions for intelligible, authorised and physically supported interaction with people.
Human resemblance creates specific expectations about identity, responsiveness and acceptable touch that must be checked against actual conditions.
Identity and participation
How robotic identity and any remote participation are made understandable.
Interaction disclosure
Record how a person can recognise the android as robotic and understand relevant remote control or observation.
- How is robotic identity communicated when the face, voice or clothing could lead a person to assume a human is present? measurement
- What disclosure or authorisation is required before enabling remote observation, recording or operator participation in this interaction? action
Embodied contact
Supported proximity and contact behaviours for the actual body configuration.
Contact permission and limits
Record task-specific evidence and permission for contact instead of inferring suitability from humanlike surfaces.
- Which contacts, such as a handshake or assisted handover, have documented operating limits for this configuration? provenance
- What permission, sensing and stop conditions must be satisfied before initiating or continuing each supported contact? action
Embodiment integrity and recovery Degradation and repair of mechanisms and coverings that support humanlike operation.
Changes to a face, hand or covering can affect sensing, motion and social interpretation together.
Covering and expression integrity
The condition of humanlike surfaces and their interaction with underlying mechanisms.
Surface and mechanism interference
Record damage or displacement that alters movement, sensor coverage or intended expression.
- Are coverings, facial elements or artificial fingers damaged, detached or interfering with actuators and sensors? measurement
- Which observed defects require disabling a gesture, contact behaviour or human-facing interaction? action
Post-service capability
Configuration changes and checks needed to restore affected behaviours.
Humanlike behaviour revalidation
Record whether maintenance changed the alignment between appearance, sensing, expression and motion.
- Which replacements or adjustments changed facial calibration, tactile coverage, joint clearance or the visible body configuration? provenance
- What checks must pass before restoring affected expressions, close interaction or physical-contact tasks? action
Evidence and external alignment What the world already says about this thing, gathered so the model can be checked against it.
A model that cannot be lined up against existing standards, identifiers and practice cannot be adopted by anyone who already uses them.
Reported evidence
Findings from the breadth pass, kept separate from the structural claims.
Kinds and varieties
Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.
- literary and cinematic android
- humanoid social robot
- android replica or doppelgänger
- sex/companion android (fictional and commercial prototypes)
- military or labour android (speculative)
- Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of android this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
What the second pass must settle
- Does the registry intend android to mean any humanlike robot, or require a particular degree of lifelike appearance?
- Does the intended category include partial bodies, teleoperated replicas and animatronic display figures?
- Which existing Vercy world models already own this concept or parts of it, and should this entry link to one rather than become a separate publication?
- Which authoritative sources and embodiment-specific evaluations can establish classification criteria and support motion, contact and maintenance claims?
- Should replicas of identifiable people introduce android-specific requirements, or should likeness authorisation and identity claims be owned entirely by neighbouring models?