{
  "aliases": [],
  "canonicalUrl": "https://xn--mwe.com/assurance-case/claims/sensor-and-model-disagreement-does-not-control-force/",
  "claimIds": [],
  "claimStatus": "PROJECT TECHNICAL PROPOSAL",
  "correctionStatus": "CURRENT K05 RELEASE",
  "currentnessQualification": "K05 point-in-time review of selected current official and first-party records completed on 2026-08-15. The review verifies publication text and status only; no public runtime monitor, live-host observation, facility-specific legal opinion, license determination, or operational effectiveness claim is created.",
  "description": "Assurance claim AC-K05-C06: evidence, defeaters, hazards, recovery objectives, and site-tailoring requirements.",
  "id": "AC-K05-C06",
  "lastReviewed": "2026-08-16",
  "name": "Sensor and model disagreement cannot directly control force",
  "publicPath": "/assurance-case/claims/sensor-and-model-disagreement-does-not-control-force/",
  "releaseId": "K12-2026-08-16",
  "releaseVersion": "2.1.0",
  "researchCutoff": "2026-08-16",
  "shortAnswer": "Physical-security autonomy separates sensing, classification, access denial, non-destructive protection, authorized responder routing, and any force-enabled response into independently governed layers.",
  "sourceRevalidatedAt": "2026-08-15T23:00:00Z",
  "title": "Sensor and model disagreement cannot directly control force",
  "topic": "cyber-physical-mission-assurance",
  "type": "assurance-claim"
}