A cobot label does not make an application collaborative

Qualify the complete application, not the robot label

A robot can include safety-related functions intended to support work near people without making every configured use collaborative. The tool, workpiece, task program, surrounding machinery, process, layout and every human interaction can add hazards or change the protective measures and evidence required.

The current ISO 10218 series makes that boundary explicit. Part 1 addresses the industrial robot before integration, while Part 2 addresses the industrial robot application and cell across design, integration, commissioning, operation, maintenance and decommissioning. A3's public explanation of the 2025 revision says the useful term is "collaborative application" because only the actual use can be designed, tested and confirmed that way.

Draw the complete application boundary

This application record belongs to the configured solution, not only the base platform. RobotAtom should not carry a robot-level safety claim across different tools, workpieces, programs or workcells as if those applications were equivalent.

• Name the exact robot, controller, software and firmware, task program and safety configuration proposed.
• Record the end effector, adapters, workpiece range, fixtures, conveyors, machines, sensors, protective devices and relevant site geometry.
• Identify sharp, hot or crushing surfaces, stored energy, hazardous process outputs and material that could be dropped or ejected.
• State the intended operating modes, production limits and reasonably foreseeable mistakes or misuse rather than assessing an ideal cycle only.
• Attach the manufacturer instructions and applicable standard revisions used by the qualified integrator or safety owner, and mark missing evidence as unknown.

List every way a person can interact with it

Automatic production is only one task state. Record who loads, unloads, teaches, sets up, inspects, cleans, clears jams, troubleshoots, recovers and maintains the application. For each interaction, identify where a person can be, which parts of the body can be exposed, whether the robot or process remains active and how the task begins and ends.

ISO 12100:2010 remains the current published general machinery risk-assessment standard, although ISO marks it for revision. Its public scope covers hazard identification, risk estimation and evaluation, risk reduction, documentation and verification across relevant lifecycle phases. That supports a task-by-task, versioned assessment record; it does not make RobotAtom or an online questionnaire the safety assessor.

Make the protective concept testable

• For each human task, state whether the robot moves, reaches monitored standstill, reduces speed or energy, limits its workspace or is isolated by safeguarding.
• Identify which function comes from the robot, a protective device, the integration or a combination, and how the complete protective chain is validated.
• Define the configured speed, force, momentum, position, orientation, stopping and separation conditions that matter to the proposed interaction.
• Specify the response to a protective stop, power or sensor failure, dropped item, lost program state and manual intervention, including the authorized restart and recovery path.
• Test representative normal, abnormal, degraded, cleaning, maintenance and recovery scenarios using the exact proposed configuration.

Treat contact results as one scoped evidence set

ISO/PAS 5672:2023 specifies methods for measuring and analysing forces and pressures in physical human-robot contacts. Its public scope also states what it does not cover: identifying contact hazards, friction or shearing, falling, electrical or chemical hazards, and organizational responsibilities or data management.

A contact test can therefore support the contact points, body regions, task states, configuration and conditions actually measured. It is not a complete risk assessment or proof that every hazard has been addressed. Preserve the measurement method and device, raw results, exact configuration, exceptions, reviewer and decision, and keep other hazards in their own evidence sets.

Put ownership and change control into the project

• Name the integrator, customer, operations, engineering and specialist owners for assessment, validation, approval and ongoing control.
• Define the evidence needed before the application may enter a trial and before any agreed collaborative task is released for use.
• Control access to safety settings and preserve the approved configuration, program, drawings, assessment, test results and operator instructions.
• Reopen the affected assessment and tests after a material change to the tool, workpiece, path, speed, program, operator task, layout, protective device, robot or software version.
• Record applicable jurisdiction, workplace, sector and internal requirements; the industrial-robot standards cited here do not cover every public-facing, medical, mobile or special environment.

Keep manufacturer and standards evidence inside its boundary

Universal Robots' current instructions say application safety depends on the tool, obstacles and other machines, and that safeguarding is required when built-in safety-related functions do not reduce application risk sufficiently. Those are manufacturer instructions for UR's documented products. They do not independently verify a proposed UR workcell, another manufacturer's product or site compliance.

The ISO and A3 pages cited here describe standards scopes and revision changes; the full paid standards were not reviewed for this article. ISO/TS 15066:2016 remains published but is marked for revision, so a project should record the exact standards and editions its qualified safety owner applies. RobotAtom records the application boundary, evidence, owners and unknowns. It does not perform or certify a safety risk assessment or confirm compliance.