A fair hearing.
An independent verdict.
Manufacturers know the criteria. Readers can see the evidence, the limitations and any relationship behind a review.
What belongs in a review
Each completed review will identify the tested configuration, hardware and software versions, test dates, intended audience and conditions. Observed results, manufacturer claims and our interpretation will be labeled separately.
Complete attempts matter. Failures, resets, assistance and meaningful constraints stay in the evidence. Edited explanations are welcome; an edited explanation must not pass as an uncut test.
Who controls the verdict
The Robot Reviewer controls its methodology, ratings, conclusions and publication. Manufacturers may supply documentation and identify factual errors. They do not receive approval rights over scores or opinions, and cannot purchase a favorable review.
Disclose the relationship
A completed review will state whether the product was purchased, discounted, supplied or loaned, and any return obligation. Sponsorship, affiliate links and other material relationships will be disclosed where they are relevant. Readers should not have to hunt for that information.
Robots in Reach is a sister business led by Tyson Koska. Where a workshop, partnership or other commercial relationship overlaps with a reviewed manufacturer, that relationship belongs in the review’s disclosure.
Be precise about autonomy
Teleoperation, programmed motion, trajectory replay, sensor-reactive behavior and learned policy inference are different things. Reviews will identify which mode produced each result, whether a remote or cloud service was required, and when a person stepped in.
What a score can—and cannot—say
The versioned rubric summarizes evidenced performance for the product’s purpose. It does not establish general-purpose intelligence, long-term reliability or certified safety. Missing evidence remains unrated. Significant failures are reported alongside the average.
Corrections and updates
Corrections will identify the changed claim and date. A substantive software or hardware update may require new testing and a revised verdict. Older evidence will retain its original configuration and date rather than silently becoming evidence for a newer product.