Public draft · open for comment
A method for admitting an agent, not a product that admits one.
The Oddy test verifies an AI agent against the specific industrial device it targets, before that agent is permitted to install or act. It is published openly so a plant can run it against any vendor’s agent — including against ours, and including to reject ours.
Status of this document
Draft, published for comment. Indagate is inviting review from controls engineers, OT security teams, integrators and other platform vendors ahead of a revised draft. Licensing and a public reference verifier have not yet been published.
Licence: not yet stated.
Reference verifier: not yet published.
Scope
What this specifies
- The evidence a candidate agent must present before installation
- The three checks that evidence is evaluated against
- That evaluation is against a named target device, not a device class
- The contents of the retained verdict
What it does not
- Require Indagate software, hardware or runtime
- Assess whether a model is accurate, or fit for a task
- Certify machine safety, or substitute for rated safety control
- Constitute conformity with any regulation
The three coupons
Each is evaluated against the named target device. A candidate that passes all three may install to a versioned slot. A candidate that fails any one of them never receives an edge directive and remains in the control plane. Either outcome produces a retained verdict.
- 1 · Identity
- The publisher, version and cryptographic digest match a signed manifest. An unsigned or unmanifested build fails here and goes no further.
- 2 · Fit
- Declared memory, runtime and accelerator requirements sit inside the measured envelope of the target device — that device, not a datasheet figure for its class.
- 3 · Reach
- The candidate requests nothing beyond the permissions explicitly granted on that device. A request for more than the grant fails regardless of how well the candidate performs.
The retained verdict
Whether a candidate passes or fails, the verdict is retained with the evidence and the target, so an operator can answer months later which agent acted on which line, under what permissions, and who approved it.
- Candidate
- Publisher, version, digest
- Target
- The named device the candidate was evaluated against
- Coupons
- Per-coupon result, and which one failed where applicable
- Verdict
- Rejected, time-boxed, or persistent slot
- Retention
- This draft does not prescribe a minimum period. Set retention against your operational and regulatory requirements.
A verification method only one vendor can perform is not a verification method. If a plant runs this against another vendor’s agent and rejects it, the specification did its job.
Tell us where this is wrong.
We would rather hear it from a controls engineer now than discover it in a deployment. Critique is more useful to us than agreement.