[jherrodthomas]

What this changes and why

Builds the safety-assurance record for the fork on the pattern of the openamrobot-assurance and LionDriver records, with the concept-phase package as its input (identifiers kept, gaps re-stated). Work products: the work product register WP-M-00 (90 rows, 75 skeletons with the document-control header), the assurance strategy WP-M-01, the safety plan WP-M-02, the confirmation measures plan WP-M-06, the regulatory strategy WP-M-13, the item definition WP-C-01, the operating envelopes WP-C-02, the risk assessment WP-C-03 (34 hazards, the package's ratings), the safety functions and PLr WP-C-04 (SF-01 to SF-32), the interaction and misuse analysis WP-C-06, the powered-test hold point WP-V-07, the safety case WP-K-01 with the Living Safety Case records and their validator and dashboard, the integrated process model WP-P-11 with its generated maps, swimlanes and gate skeletons, the decision register with twenty questions (ten open on the inbox page), the baseline gap assessment (GAP-01 to GAP-36), and the hazard-scene track WP-P-12: fifteen hazards of WP-C-03 drawn on upstream's v1.1 CAD, posed by a joint rig built from the STEP, with a CC0 operator figure, one review dashboard per scene, three clips and a gallery. README, wiki, CONTRIBUTING, SECURITY, issue and pull-request templates and the CI workflow follow. Upstream's hardware/ and the package files at the root are not edited.

Safety-impact statement

• Safety-relevant class (SR-A, SR-Q, SR-T, or NSR; see assurance/07-supporting/safety-relevant-paths.txt): NSR for the code (no safety-chain file, controller or parameter set exists yet; the record is being created, not changed). The change creates the assurance work products themselves, every one in Draft or Skeleton.
• Hazards, safety functions, requirements or assumptions affected: none changed in meaning; HZ-M01 to HZ-D01 and SF-01 to SF-31 are carried from the package with their identifiers, SF-32 (emergency stop) is added as a proposal, AOU-01 to AOU-08 are recorded. The hazard scenes are pictures with no evidence credit: no claim rests on them.
• Impact analysis record (assurance/07-supporting/impact/), if SR-A or SR-Q: not applicable (first creation of the record; the folder and its procedure are set up for later changes).
• Verification done (tests, analyses, generators re-run): every check in CONTRIBUTING run locally and green: case validator and tests, decision register checks and inbox build, folder indexes, process model and figures with their tests, README figures with their test, link and table checks with their tests, the wiki build, the scene catalogue tests (PyYAML and numpy only) and the hero-strip check. CI runs the same.

Checks

• python3 assurance/01-management/decisions/check_decisions.py
• python3 assurance/tools/folder_index.py --check
• python3 assurance/process/tools/process_model.py --check
• python3 docs/assets/rebot/make_assets.py --check
• python3 assurance/tools/check_links.py && python3 assurance/tools/check_tables.py
• python3 tools/wiki/build_wiki.py
• Generated files (maps, skeletons, folder READMEs, figures) regenerated, never edited by hand
• No safety claim added that the evidence does not support; no status moved past Draft without a review record

---

Generated by Claude Code