INFORMpowered byPULSE
Access portal
Programme/Validation roadmap
Validation / stage-gated

Progress is earned by evidence, not narrative.

Each stage has a de-risking question, required controls and an explicit authority to proceed. The current programme remains at Stage 1 pre-laboratory activation.

Current: Stage 1Decision: NO-GO / HOLDProvisional TRL: 3–4
Concept illustration: an instrumented concrete beam in a test frame with a lit conductive network, under panels for strain response, a conductivity map and load response.
Concept illustration: a concrete beam on a test bed beside three panels, lab controls with four checks, signal validation and pilot readiness, leading to a bridge.
Concept illustration: five stage panels in a row, material definition, laboratory validation, pilot scale, field validation and commercial adoption, each with an open checklist.
Concept illustration
Stage pathway

Five stages from architecture to adoption

S0 · Complete

Research and architecture definition

Define system boundary, material classes, sensing hypothesis, DAQ architecture, evidence model and commercial questions.

You are here
S1 · Current / HOLD

Controlled laboratory validation

Verify materials and controls, execute a frozen batch protocol, quantify mechanical and electrical response, and assess repeatability.

S2 · Pending

Prototype sensing and PULSE analytics

Validate electrode stability, controlled excitation, acquisition, timestamps, feature extraction and end-to-end data integrity.

S3 · Pending

Field-relevant pilot

Test constructability, environmental drift and decision usefulness alongside comparator instrumentation under realistic conditions.

S4 · Pending

Field monitoring and adoption pathway

Establish long-duration performance, asset-owner value, assurance requirements, procurement pathway and commercial model.

[ Fig 6.1 · Stage pathway S0–S4 ]
Stage 1

Release and evidence gates

The sequence below implements the latest operating intent while preserving protocol and material verification as mandatory prerequisites. Final gate IDs require canonical sign-off.

Stage 1 gate board · Decision: NO-GO / HOLD 0 of 6 gates closed · Status as published 19 July 2026
De-risking question
Is the method auditable and is every input identified?
Minimum evidence
Approved protocol, test matrix, COA/SDS, lot numbers and change log.
De-risking question
Is execution safe and formally authorised?
Minimum evidence
Risk assessment, JSA/SWMS, SDS review, induction and written release.
De-risking question
Can baseline and PCE-control specimens be reproduced?
Minimum evidence
Batch records, replicates, curing records and acceptance checks.
De-risking question
Can the system recover known electrical inputs?
Minimum evidence
Reference resistor, open/short, noise floor, channel and timestamp logs.
De-risking question
Is load-linked response repeatable and distinguishable from drift?
Minimum evidence
Replicates, uncertainty, SNR, electrode stability and environmental record.
De-risking question
Can evidence transfer beyond the bench?
Minimum evidence
Pilot design, comparator plan, pre-registered criteria and partner approval.
Public status summary. The controlled evidence register is authoritative; this board is not live telemetry.
[ Fig 6.2 · Stage 1 gate board · as published ]
Canonical conflict

The supplied design pack numbered protocol, materials, DAQ and WHS gates differently from the latest programme notes. This page resolves the operating sequence conceptually but intentionally withholds legacy M-identifiers until the controlled master gate register is approved.

Evidence is reviewed at the gate—not reconstructed later

Approved partners can inspect controlled protocols, evidence registers, risk controls and decision records through the data room and workflow portal.

Request controlled access →