ISO 3691-4 AMR requirements work should connect the vehicle, its driverless truck system and the conditions of the actual installation. A vehicle test report alone cannot answer whether a proposed route, load arrangement or operating zone satisfies the assumptions on which that report depends. Build site acceptance around those dependencies and retain the configuration and authority for each decision.
This guide is for AMR systems leads, deployment engineers and commissioning managers preparing a customer installation or reviewing a changed site. Its practical output is a site-assumption and acceptance worksheet. The worksheet makes the evidence handoff between supplier, integrator and site operator visible without presenting a generic list as the requirements of a paid standard.
Confirm the truck and system boundary
The ISO 3691-4:2023 public abstract addresses driverless industrial trucks and their systems. It gives automated guided vehicles and autonomous mobile robots as examples. It also describes a system that includes control, guidance means and power system, with control potentially inside or separate from the truck. Those statements make the system boundary an early engineering question.
Record the actual product and intended use before deciding applicability. A catalogue label such as AMR can describe different machines and operating arrangements. Consider the modes, transported loads, manual or maintenance functions and external control arrangement. Obtain an authorised applicability decision using the full relevant documents. The public abstract cannot establish that every mobile robot falls within the standard.
Define three connected boundaries for the project: the supplied truck, the system required for its driverless operation and the installed environment. The system might include external guidance or control equipment. The installation might include site traffic rules, access arrangements and interfaces with doors or conveyors. Allocating an item to one boundary does not remove its influence on another.
Keep exclusions visible. The abstract names additional hazards associated with some environments and uses that it does not address. An expansion into public zones or severe conditions therefore needs a specific applicability and hazard review. Do not turn that observation into a blanket conclusion about the legal status of a named product.
Control the edition and the source of authority
The ISO catalogue reviewed on 26 October 2026 identifies ISO 3691-4:2023 as edition 2, published in June 2023. It also points to ISO/DIS 3691-4 as an expected successor. A draft is a separate source with a separate status. Record whether the project relies on a contractual edition, an adopted regional version, another applicable source or an agreed combination.
Keep publication, contractual applicability and any legal presumption as separate decisions. The catalogue identifies the document and public scope. It does not prove current EU harmonisation or the conformity route for your installation. If those questions matter, retain the operative legal source and applicable listed reference. The machinery transition guide addresses that broader market and release question.
Store clause references only after the engineering team has access to and has assessed the applicable text. Label source excerpts, supplier declarations and internal derived requirements by their evidence role. A supplier’s assertion that a product follows a standard needs review of what was supplied, which edition it covers and what assumptions remain for the installed system.
Capture operating-zone assumptions before commissioning
The public abstract explicitly states that operating-zone conditions significantly affect safe truck operation. That supports giving site conditions a first-class place in the review. It does not supply universal dimensions, speed limits or separation rules for this guide. Those criteria need authorised sources and an application-specific assessment.
Capture the approved route and zone plan, floor and support conditions, load family, interfaces with fixed equipment, access patterns and traffic arrangements that matter to the application. Each assumption needs an owner who can establish it and a way to recognise a consequential change. “Site ready” is too broad to verify unless the readiness criteria are defined.
Some assumptions are physical, such as the position of a docking station. Others describe behaviour, such as who may enter a transfer area during operation. Keep site procedures, equipment requirements and truck behaviour as different records with explicit relationships. A procedure can be part of the operating arrangement, but it does not demonstrate that the truck independently recognises the condition.
Build a site-assumption and acceptance worksheet
Use one row per important installation claim. This proposed worksheet is a requirements-management method, not a reproduction of ISO 3691-4 clauses. Populate its acceptance criteria from the applicable project sources and reviewed risk controls.
| Worksheet field | What to retain | Why the reviewer needs it |
|---|---|---|
| Installation claim | Claim ID, zone or route, task and installed configuration | Defines the operation being accepted |
| Source and assumption | Applicable source reference, supplier condition or site commitment and its authority | Separates a requirement from an unconfirmed assumption |
| Boundary and owner | Truck, external system or site responsibility, with a named acceptance owner | Prevents the interfaces from being left between organisations |
| Condition establishment | Inspection, measurement, controlled drawing or procedure, with a date and revision | Shows how the installation matches the assumption |
| Commissioning evidence | Method, procedure, acceptance criteria, installed setup, result and limitations | Shows which claim the work actually addresses |
| Decision and restrictions | Reviewer, disposition, unresolved action and permitted operating scope | Distinguishes collected evidence from accepted use |
| Effectivity and change trigger | Site revision, affected routes or vehicles and events that reopen the claim | Prevents old evidence from silently covering a new installation |
Confirm both ends of a handoff. If the supplier specifies an installation condition, the site owner needs to acknowledge and establish it. If the site changes that condition, the integrator needs a route for reviewing its consequences. A completed supplier record and an unacknowledged site assumption should remain separate states.
Keep an explicit gap for missing evidence, disputed responsibility or an unavailable source. Give the gap an owner and a next decision. A green field called “document received” should not close a claim whose installed applicability has never been assessed.
Separate product verification, commissioning and operating acceptance
Product verification asks whether the supplied truck or system meets defined requirements in a defined test configuration. Commissioning establishes and evaluates the installed arrangement. Operating acceptance decides whether the reviewed installation and its supporting evidence justify the proposed use. The programme may organise these activities differently, but their questions should remain distinguishable.
For each commissioning activity, identify what is being exercised and what is merely assumed. A docking test may exercise an interface while depending on a particular load and floor arrangement. An inspection may establish a drawing revision without demonstrating behaviour under loss of an external control signal. Choose the method appropriate to the claim and make limitations visible.
Record deviations at the claim level. A restriction may permit a narrower route or load family while another claim stays open. Whether that is acceptable is an authorised project decision. It must not emerge accidentally because a dashboard counts the majority of procedures as complete.
The robotics configuration-evidence guide explains the underlying result and configuration record. This worksheet adds the installed site assumption, responsible organisation and effectivity of the acceptance decision.
Worked example: an unexecuted transfer-zone review
The following example is entirely fictional and unexecuted. A proposed SABLE-2 installation would move approved containers between a storage route and transfer zone TZ-6. Baseline SB-F3 would comprise truck build TB-8, external control configuration FC-11 and site drawing SD-24. The example shows how a commissioning manager could expose unresolved handoffs. No listed procedure has been executed and no acceptance is implied.
| Claim and boundary | Assumption and owner | Planned evidence and decision |
|---|---|---|
| SITE-A11: docking alignment at TZ-6 | Integrator owns the installed interface against SD-24. Site facilities owns the dock position. | Inspection SI-05 and interface procedure SP-17 are planned. The dock-position acknowledgment is still needed. |
| SITE-A12: approved container family | Supplier identifies family LF-3 for the proposed setup. Operations owns the batch-control arrangement. | Acceptance criteria must connect LF-3 to the planned loaded-truck evaluation. No other container family is covered. |
| SITE-A13: external-control interruption | Supplier and integrator must agree which function recognises interruption and which behaviour is required. | Gap SG-04 holds procedure SP-19 until the allocated requirement and interface responsibilities are agreed. |
| SITE-A14: access arrangement at transfer zone | Site operations owns the proposed access procedure. The integrator owns its relationship to the application’s risk controls. | Procedure review and an installation-specific assessment are planned. A vehicle document cannot close this arrangement by itself. |
| SITE-A15: revised route beside TZ-6 | Facilities proposes drawing SD-25. Its influence on visibility, access and transfer operation needs review. | Change SC-09 identifies affected claims. Evidence for SB-F3 cannot automatically accept the proposed drawing. |
The useful outcome is a set of specific decisions. SG-04 needs an agreed response requirement, not another copy of the truck manual. SITE-A11 needs confirmation of the installed dock position. SC-09 needs an impact review before the new route can receive an acceptance disposition. The worksheet tells each organisation which work it owns.
A later reviewer could inspect the source, installed revision, evidence and acceptance authority for each claim. If the project eventually executes the procedures, it should retain the actual setup and result limitations. Those results would support only the scope justified by the subsequent review.
Control changed-site effectivity
Define the events that can invalidate an acceptance assumption. They may include a revised route, changed access, a new load, moved equipment, a fleet-control update or altered floor conditions. Select triggers from the installation assessment. Do not assume a software-only change list will capture physical site changes.
When a trigger occurs, compare the proposed installation against the accepted one. Trace the affected assumption to product requirements, site commitments and evidence. Decide whether each result remains applicable, requires supplementary work or needs replacement. Keep the original result and its original configuration intact.
Make the release decision explicit for the affected site, zone and configuration. A decision for one route should not appear as acceptance for every route in the warehouse. The robotics change-impact guide supports the wider dependency review, including owners and unresolved work.
Manage the installation evidence in Arc
Arc’s public connected programme model supports typed engineering records, ownership and relationships. A team can configure the worksheet’s site assumptions and acceptance decisions, then connect them to requirements, interfaces and verification records. The customer defines the record structure and authority.
Verification and test management connects procedures, executions, results and evidence. Configuration views can expose evidence for a selected installation revision. Reviewable changes preserve the proposed route revision and its disposition. These mechanisms organise engineering work, while the project determines standard applicability, commissioning criteria and evidence sufficiency.
Evaluate one site handoff
Bring one supplier assumption, one site drawing, a representative evidence record and one proposed route change to an Arc demo. Build the corresponding acceptance rows and trace the changed drawing to its affected claims. Ask a reviewer to identify which organisation owns each open condition and which configuration the evidence supports.
The exercise is useful when the team can reconstruct one installation decision and its unresolved handoff from the records. Use synthetic or agreed evaluation material and agree data handling before adding site or programme information.
Sources and method
Arc prepared this educational guide and sells requirements management and systems engineering software.
Prepared on 26 October 2026 using the ISO 3691-4:2023 public catalogue and abstract retrieved that day and Arc’s current canonical capability-page source. The full paid standard was not acquired or reviewed. The worksheet and fictional SABLE-2 scenario are editorial methods, not extracted clause obligations. No universal operating-zone limit, current harmonisation status or site compliance conclusion is asserted. Arc capability records retain their public review date of 4 September 2026.
Frequently asked questions
Does ISO 3691-4 apply to every AGV and AMR?
The public scope covers driverless industrial trucks and their systems and includes AGV and AMR examples. The marketing label alone does not decide applicability. Review the actual truck definition, functions, modes, intended use and scope exclusions against the full applicable documents.
Why is site evidence needed as well as vehicle evidence?
The operating zone and system interfaces can affect the installed application. Vehicle evidence may depend on conditions that the site must establish, such as an agreed route arrangement or load family. Site evidence shows whether those particular assumptions and interfaces have been addressed for the installation being reviewed.
Does the public scope provide universal AMR zone limits?
No. The public abstract identifies the significance of operating-zone conditions, but this guide has not reviewed the paid clauses or their numerical limits. Use the authorised standard edition and the application assessment to establish the limits and verification criteria for the project.
Is ISO 3691-4:2023 already replaced by the draft successor?
The ISO catalogue reviewed on 26 October 2026 identifies ISO 3691-4:2023 as published and points to a draft successor. A draft listing does not establish that a replacement edition is published or applicable to your contract. Record the edition authority and review any later publication separately.
What should reopen an AMR site-acceptance decision?
A change to routes, access, floor conditions, load handling, traffic, fleet behaviour, interfaces or other acceptance assumptions should trigger an impact review. Retain old results with their tested scope, then decide which installation claims remain supported and which need further evidence.