The next production window forces a choice between restoring throughput and proving safe contact behavior.
The customer needs the assembly cell running again, while damaged parts make an under-tested policy unacceptable.
Who you’d be doing this for
“I’ve got operators watching a cell that was supposed to run on its own, and every hard insertion becomes a scrap question.”
Munachi Darko · Robotics Engineer
Owns the customer line where the insertion policy is deployed and is accountable for keeping the cell productive.
What is at stake
Hard insertions are damaging 3.2% of parts even when the robot marks the assembly complete. You have to weigh a fast return to throughput against evidence strong enough to clear the next policy.
Why it isn’t already fixed
Every obvious fix costs something else. That’s the part you’d have to decide.
- production continuity vs damaged-part exposure
- offline replay vs real-robot evidence
- policy improvement vs control-path stability
- cycle time vs conservative contact behavior
Why Applied Intuition
Dana's learned manipulation policies are judged on real robots, where force-controlled assembly must protect both cycle time and customer hardware.
Written with these in mind
Not your kind of problem? 65 more at Applied Intuition, or browse every organization.
This is the setup. The work is inside.
Running it puts you in the room: the full situation and its constraints, stakeholders who push back in their own words, and the decisions that are yours to make. What you produce becomes a Day One Plan — work you can show someone instead of describing.