Turn complex real-world problems into evidence-governed technology pathways.

Use simulation to investigate scenarios, operating conditions, uncertainty, failure modes, constraints, candidate architectures and design trade-offs. Projects can progress from conceptual models into higher-fidelity engineering simulations as evidence and requirements mature.

IYABOKO multidigital architecture extends beyond a single isolated digital twin by allowing multiple digital representations, models, evidence streams and domain contexts to remain connected around the same project or physical system.

• Digital twins
• Multidigital system models
• System-of-systems representations
• Cross-domain relationships
• Configuration and state history
• Evidence provenance
• Simulation linkage
• Physical-system handoff

The objective is not merely to reproduce an object digitally, but to preserve the context, continuity, relationships and evidence state required to understand how that system changes over time.

• Software prototypes
• APIs and runtime services
• Embedded systems
• Sensors and instrumentation
• Electronics
• FPGA pathways
• Edge computing
• Prototype control architectures
• Data-acquisition systems
• Hardware interfaces

Every prototype remains linked to its requirements, assumptions, evidence and validation status. A successful software simulation does not automatically become a validated hardware claim.

• Mechanical systems
• Embedded computation
• Sensors and actuators
• Control logic
• Machine perception
• Robotics
• Autonomous-system research
• Human-machine interfaces
• Safety and authority constraints

Projects can begin with simulation and digital representation before progressing into laboratory prototypes or controlled embodied systems. Human authority and project-specific safety boundaries remain explicit throughout development.

• CAD preparation
• CAM workflows
• CNC machining
• Additive manufacturing
• Prototype fabrication
• Engineering drawings
• Manufacturing tolerances
• Component traceability
• Material records
• Revision control
• Inspection artefacts

Manufacturing outputs can remain connected to project evidence so that a physical component can be traced to its design version, assumptions, material specification and validation record.

• Interface validation
• Sensor and device integration
• Fault injection
• Timing behaviour
• Communications testing
• Hardware/software interaction
• Recovery behaviour
• Adverse-condition testing
• Evidence capture
• Reproducibility testing

C3 HIL protocols can support governed computational and evidence workflows, while physical hardware validation remains a separate evidence gate requiring real hardware results. Simulation evidence and physical evidence are never treated as equivalent automatically.

• Boundary violations
• Component failures
• Sensor degradation
• Communication loss
• Corrupted data
• Power interruption
• Restart and recovery
• Thermal stress
• Timing faults
• Conflicting evidence
• Post-recovery stability

The objective is to discover where the system fails, how safely it fails, and what evidence is required before progression.

• Evidence integrity
• Proof-of-continuation
• Continuation ledgers
• Recovery and re-entry
• Quorum evidence
• Hardware-trust evidence
• Authority ceilings
• Tamper detection
• Independent-review preparation

SACG does not replace C3 computation. It evaluates whether evidence and continuity conditions support a particular bounded authority state.

A project can progress through increasingly demanding evidence gates.

Progression is evidence-gated rather than presentation-gated. Higher engineering maturity requires stronger evidence; a polished interface, simulation result or successful internal test does not by itself establish physical, operational or independent validation.