AI signal coverage for DroneRadar
Readiness assessment and proposed propagation completion path; detector validation remains a later gate.
Idea and intended value
Complete the existing radio-coverage asset and assess its use in DroneRadar. The user asked for examination of the repository and related Claude chats, with idea-specific data linked to shared knowledge.1
Recommendation: build a reproducible propagation-map capability first, then test its usefulness for measurement planning and receiver placement. Existing code and simulator results are promising; model integration, domain validation and detector calibration remain incomplete. This recommendation is not an implementation decision.3
Current scope and authorization
Owner chat: 01a12433-f321-7eb0-a4d5-2ed2ad6da6fc.
Current scope: approved v002, SHA-256 e26081fb0784158bae0c2daa91e98d4e6348f7a9c27336787a4faf7521cb06a7. User receipt records “Approved”; manager start receipt separately authorizes the bounded assessment. The approved assessment was completed after the manager's committed start handoff. Published v001, original input and pre-gate evidence remain preserved; history is in changes.2
Scope covers read-only investigation, completion planning, a proposed data contract and experiment design. New training/inference, source changes, downloads, paid APIs, deployment and detector integration are excluded. Overall DroneRadar project-boundary wording remains a recommendation for manager reconciliation.
Results and evidence
- Readiness assessment: recommendation, alternatives, evidence gaps and decisions.
- Completion milestones: existing tool gates, optional research branches and later detector/application validation.
- Proposed interface: propagation quantities and separate observation/calibration contract.4
- First experiment plan: a bounded reference-sensitivity audit before recalibration/training; not executed.5
- Data manifest: preserved originals, derived inventories and capture limitations.
- Main findings, worktree findings and curated session inventory.
- Shared research links: existing landscape and canonical evidence.
Findings that guide the next phase
The baseline application exists, while learned-model loading is absent from its inspected inference path. Learned rays have stage-one records but await map/speed validation; the raster tracer is a proposal. SpectrumNet has similar in-domain scores but a 38.4 percentage-point transfer coverage spread between seeds. Reference choice (IRT2 versus IRT4) materially changes near-range coverage, so calibration/evaluation credibility comes before more training.3
A path-gain or controller-link map does not establish passive detector coverage. Detector signal compatibility, antenna/receiver configuration, scan/dwell, interference, uptime and independently known target exposure require separate evidence. Probability remains unavailable until calibrated.4
Decisions and next action
The user approved this assessment scope. No implementation method, numeric acceptance threshold, experiment budget, detector-performance target or commercial decision has been approved. Proposed priority: reliable propagation maps and reproducible evaluation, followed by application-specific validation.23
Assessment complete. Independent review found two medium issues, both corrected and rechecked. Coordinator checked 67 retained-data integrity entries and 50/50 archived source-file copies against their current origins; final knowledge validation passed. No source runtime or scientific performance was reproduced. Next action: manager checkpoints the stable assessment; manager/user can then consider a separately scoped reference-sensitivity experiment. Missing geography, operating heights/frequencies and partner data/sensitivity remain explicit inputs for later phases; they are not filled with invented defaults.
-
Exact original user request, retained separately. ↩
-
Immutable current scope; receipts document actual approval and manager coordination. ↩↩
-
Synthesis links exact archived code, result JSON, provenance and selected conversation evidence. ↩↩↩
-
Proposed interface conventions and later calibration evidence; not a built adapter. ↩↩
-
Proposed experiment design and resource caps require subsequent authorization. ↩