Sara Singh

That's a key distinction; it should be seen as two different categories. The first is basic manipulation, like holding a ball. The other is contextual manipulation, like picking an apple at the right ripeness or being careful with damage, which is a much more complex class of problem.

You say that the architecture of the Festo Bionic Handling Assistant does not automatically realize advanced robotic manipulation capabilities without a clear performance threshold and that usefulness is measured by the cost/benefit ratio.
I understand your point about the need for metrics, but the idea that a design alone guarantees anything is a bit naive.
A restructuring plan can be perfect on paper, but it does not account for collective agreements or the realities of the workshop, such as dust or temperature variations.
True advanced capability is the one that works smoothly on the ground, not just in the lab, for example a robot that must sort parts outdoors in rain and mud.
Without tangible evidence and reliability figures in real conditions, it's just a nice story.

The idea that the architecture of the Festo Bionic Handling Assistant reduces fragmentation is interesting, but how do we concretely measure this reduction? I would need observable data on the error rate of integration or the processing speed before validating the claim. For example, would a parcel sorting system using a Festo arm have a significantly lower software incompatibility rate than other systems without this architecture, and with what sample data (n=)? Without measurable thresholds for improvement, this remains speculation.