Where systems tend to come apart.

Each one exists because a class of system kept passing its own tests and then behaving differently under opposition.

Swarm against counter-swarm

Cohesion holds under clean conditions and frays when the link budget does. We run the swarm against an interceptor team that is allowed to target the coordination itself.

GPS-denied navigation

Denial arrives gradually. Position error grows, the system keeps reporting confidence, and the range records the moment it stops trusting itself against an independent truth track.

Adversarial-ML robustness

Physical-world perturbation against the perception stack, with no access to model weights. If an attack needs the model to succeed, it is a research result. If it works without it, it is a fielding risk.

Human-machine teaming

Where authority sat, when it moved, and whether the operator had what they needed at the moment it moved to them. Handoff latency under load is where teaming concepts usually come apart.

How an engagement runs

Week 1

Scoping and adversary brief

The vendor states intent and envelope. The range writes the opposition brief against that statement and does not share it.

Week 2

Integration and baseline

We instrument the system against the range truth track. One scripted run confirms it does what the vendor said it does.

Weeks 3 to 4

Contested runs

Repeated engagements with the adversary adapting between them and conditions changing without notice.

Week 5

Disclosure and file

The vendor reads the findings first and may attach a response. The assurance file then goes to the programme office intact.

Every engagement is built around one system.

If none of the four describe your problem, the scoping conversation is the same.

Request a test slot