ENGINEERING ARCHITECTURE • IP CANDIDATE
System Architecture
The proposed system treats flexible-line recovery as a closed-loop physical state problem: observe the line, reconstruct its state, choose a low-risk manipulation, execute it, verify the physical result, and either commit or recover.
Overhead RGB-D camera, local cameras and optional tactile/force/tension sensing observe the recovery chamber. Motor current and encoder data provide actuator response.
Vision and sensor data are converted into endpoints, segments, crossings, loop candidates, local tension class and module ownership.
The planner selects manipulation primitives such as ACQUIRE, SLIDE, CREATE_SLACK, LIFT, SEPARATE, TRANSFER and REVERSE.
Independent compliant modules manipulate nearby line sections and transfer ownership rather than requiring a single unconstrained robot arm.
After every action, the controller checks expected geometry change, motion response, grip/contact consistency, tension envelope and state confidence.
If verification fails, the last verified state is restored where possible and an alternate manipulation is selected. Safety faults force a safe stop or release.
Once the line is verified as recovered, it is transferred into a controlled straightening, routing or loose-coil path. The final output state is recorded for traceability.
Why the architecture is structured this way
Flexible lines can change configuration during manipulation. The proposed control approach therefore does not treat a successful motor command as proof of success. The physical result must be measured before the state is committed.
Engineering handoff
The diagram connects directly to the control package, prototype build specification, physical validation record, buyer technical dossier and IP boundary matrix.