Browser-local physical-agent gate · Source checked August 29, 2026

Can your MHS pilot fail safely on the real device?

Check preview access, physical identity, typed driver state, shared adapter policy, deterministic limits, independent interlocks, failure tests, and reconstructable evidence before an agent controls equipment.

Quick answer

Use this check only for one named device and reversible workflow. A credible MHS pilot binds logical and physical identity, validates typed commands outside the model, preserves independent interlocks and stop authority, and proves failure recovery on a supervised real-hardware fixture.

MHS pilot evidence

Check only evidence reviewed for one exact device and workflow. Selections stay in this page and are not saved.

Research-preview access, current specification, license or repository status, supported adapters, change process, vendor obligations, and exit path have been rechecked from first-party sources.Every logical driver is bound to an approved physical device, model, serial, location, firmware, vendor interface, calibration state, environment, and accountable owner.Reads and writes have typed schemas, units, freshness, quality, ranges, rate and sequence limits, preconditions, acknowledgments, timeouts, and safe-state behavior.Device tags and generated references are reviewed against manuals and observed behavior; versioning, change approval, rollback, drift detection, and revalidation are defined.MCP, CLI, and API paths share authenticated identity, least privilege, command policy, approvals, audit, network boundaries, and cannot bypass deterministic device controls.Independent controller limits, physical interlocks, emergency stops, human authority, separation of duties, maintenance mode, and incident response work without the model or network.Simulation and bounded real-hardware tests cover invalid units, limits, stale state, concurrency, disconnects, duplicate commands, partial execution, sensor disagreement, obstruction, and recovery.The exact model, harness, driver, adapter, policy, code, prompts, approvals, tests, outcomes, anomalies, monitoring, rollback, and revalidation evidence are retained for the approved workflow.

Local result

Define the physical boundary

Eight gates remain. Begin with one named device, one reversible workflow, and the independent control that stops unsafe motion or energy.

A checklist cannot certify equipment, replace vendor instructions, qualified safety engineering, scientific review, operating procedures, or applicable law.

Continue by evidence gap

Preview and accessSeparate current preview facts from future open-source expectations. MHS versus MCPPlace driver, adapter, policy, controller, and human authority. Driver safety testsTest identity, units, failures, interlocks, and recovery.

MHS readiness questions

No. It runs locally in the browser and does not connect to MHS, Anthropic, an MCP server, a device, a lab network, or an account. Do not paste credentials, device data, safety records, or sensitive experiment details into this page.

No. It only confirms that eight evidence categories were checked. It does not certify safety, security, compliance, scientific validity, hardware compatibility, or production readiness.

Not at the August 29, 2026 source check. Anthropic and the MHS site describe a limited application-based research preview and say open source is forthcoming.

Anthropic lists all three as MHS control mechanisms. They should converge on the same identity, authorization, validation, limit, logging, stop, and recovery controls so an alternate adapter cannot bypass policy.

Recheck the live preview, obtain expert approval, and run one low-energy, reversible workflow on an isolated real-hardware fixture with independent interlocks, supervision, incident response, and a stop decision.

Official references: Anthropic research-preview announcement, MHS preview and application site, and MCP introduction.

Can your MHS pilot fail safely on the real device?

Quick answer

MHS pilot evidence

Define the physical boundary

Continue by evidence gap

MHS readiness questions

Features

Resources

Company