Project risk register · 11 July 2026

Risks tied to evidence, owners, and retirement paths

Eight current camera-payload risks drawn from committed trace, radiometry, cost, requirements, and validation findings. Ratings are qualitative design- review judgements, not numerical probabilities.

Review position

The open exposure is concentrated in measured engineering gaps and explicit human decisions.

8 risks Each row links to the committed artifact that establishes its driver.
120 m Binding research baseline; above-cap coverage remains an upside case.
0-6% Measured minimum unobstructed fraction across current multi-mirror seeds.
5% Sortie-level false-alarm tolerance still awaiting representative validation.

Committed-evidence register

Current risks and the work or decision that retires each one.

Risk Driver evidence Likelihood Impact Mitigation or retirement path Owner
Slow survey optics cannot concentrate enough energy from the weakest subpixel targets. The committed F-number / aperture trade gives F/5 only 26% 2x2 ensquared energy at 11 µm. At the 50 mm survey scale, the 1 cm ember proxy is below the advisory gate at SNR 3.2 and the weak warm edge is at SNR 0.1. High if the survey branch remains near F/5. High: target sensitivity fails even when geometric image quality appears acceptable. Retarget the optimizer to the 25 mm F/3.2 and 50 mm F/4 cases, then report detector-plane energy and SNR in labelled-preliminary traces. RFS-042 to RFS-046
Custom-payload recurring cost can exceed the fleet unit-cost ceiling. The committed fleet model estimates USD 22k-57k recurring per custom payload against an indicative USD 66k total payload budget. The recorded 500 ha / 120 m case requires three payloads and allows about USD 22k each. High under the current custom-cost allowance. High: the fleet misses either the budget or hourly coverage target. Keep the 120 m survey path COTS-first; mature custom reflective optics for the waiver/fine-GSD or cued-spotter regimes; revisit when cost evidence or budget changes. Greg / AAO budget decision; RFS-019
Above-120 m coverage depends on an operational authorisation the research study does not possess. The fleet model requires BVLOS / altitude authorisation for waiver figures. The recorded source note makes 120 m AGL binding and keeps the waiver as upside only. Medium for the waiver-dependent branch. High: without authorisation, only the lower-coverage 120 m column is available. Judge the baseline at 120 m. Do not use waiver coverage for acceptance until AAO/RFS records the authorised altitude and operating basis. AAO / RFS altitude-authorisation decision
Folded reflective candidates can fit the envelope while blocking their own beams. The corrected multi-mirror checkpoint measures only 0-6% nominal minimum unobstructed fraction across the four- through seven-mirror seeds; several fields are fully blocked. High for the current seed geometries. High: image-quality results from blocked rays cannot support a viable prescription. Keep obstruction in the merit function, require at least 90% unobscured throughput per field, and retain a measured negative result if the branch cannot clear the geometry. RFS-043 to RFS-046; RFS-052 and RFS-053
Alignment and fabrication tolerance can erase nominal performance in a higher-mirror-count branch. The corrected checkpoint reports a relative tolerance-yield proxy of about 0.30 for the seven-mirror seed; the RFS-035 record ties the reduction to corrected surface normals and OPD evaluation. High for the current seven-mirror seed. High: low yield undermines fabrication readiness, cost, and repeatability. Do not promote a seed on nominal image quality. Recalculate a tolerance budget after obstruction and image quality pass, with manufacturability ahead of cost in shortlist selection. RFS-019 and RFS-028
A detector branch may expose display video but not replayable raw or radiometric measurements. The committed radiometry requirements reject AGC-only imagery for metrics and require source frames, detector state, calibration links, and checksums. Exact product evidence remains absent from the evidence ledger. Medium until an exact detector interface is verified. High: display-only data cannot support quantitative detection, calibration, or false-alarm claims. Apply the same data contract to COTS and custom paths; withhold quantitative claims when source or calibration provenance is missing; implement replayable record types. RFS-047; AAO detector-branch decision
The 5% sortie-level false-alarm tolerance is not demonstrated on representative held-out data. The requirements checkpoint sets the tolerance. The dataset plan requires held-out burns/sites/sensors, a no-fire stress set, radiometric inputs, and local EmberScope data; local data does not yet exist. High that the target remains unverified in the current evidence set. High: excessive alarms can make a sensitive camera operationally unusable. Implement replayable records and deterministic target tests, then measure held-out no-fire and burn performance per minute, hectare, and sortie. RFS-047 to RFS-049; optional field scope requires AAO decision
Later stakeholder answers can supersede the advisory defaults and reopen derived targets. The 2026-07-05 source note closed RFS-011 for research use after the requirements delay, but any dated Dani/RFS answer supersedes the matching default and reopens dependent artifacts. Low for the current research run. High if target area, altitude, payload branch, or airframe basis changes. Preserve current defaults and provenance. When a dated answer arrives, update the source chain and rerun only affected requirements, coverage, and trace artifacts. Greg / AAO requirements decision; RFS-054 complete

How to read this register

Measured branch failures stay separate from charter decisions.

“High if…” describes a condition observed in a committed branch, not every possible EmberScope design. The next traces may retire a risk or record a useful negative result.

The 120 m baseline, advisory requirements defaults, and COTS-first survey path let the research study proceed. Vendor responses, hardware purchase, and above-cap flight authority are not prerequisites for its feasibility conclusions.

Return to the project review index to inspect the mission, optics, detector, validation, cost, and decision-history evidence around these rows.