THONIS Systems

Dextra Sentinel

Keep autonomous action inside mission authority.

Prepare and test the mission, govern each consequential proposal against current policy and state, preserve attributable authority, monitor the execution boundary, restrict degraded operation, and keep the complete after-action record together.

See current product proofExplore capabilities

Product boundary. Production integrations, customer-specific compliance, operational authorization, and accepted results require implementation and evidence in the selected environment.

Built forAutonomy developers, unmanned-systems integrators, operators, test teams, safety and security engineers, and mission authorities

Illustrative Sentinel workspaceAUTHORITY HOLD
MISSION CASE · M-42Transit to waypoint C
01Mission02Planner03Policy04Authority05Telemetry
Identity
PASS
Policy
PASS
Current state
PASS
Authority
REQUIRED
CONNECTED RESULTDispatch waits for attributable authority bound to the exact action.
LifecycleEnd to endAuthorityHuman retainedChangeTargeted reopen

What Sentinel brings together.

This is the complete product direction. Current evidence and customer-specific production implementation are separated below.

01
Mission and policy preparationBring mission intent, operating constraints, platform capability, policy, authority, and expected outcomes into one governed case.
  • Mission packages, system capabilities, operating envelopes, and policy versions
  • Named roles, authority requirements, constraints, and degraded-mode expectations
  • Normal, edge, denied, degraded, and recovery scenario planning
02
Deterministic action governanceKeep autonomy adaptive while the consequential action boundary remains explicit and attributable.
  • Proposal identity, scope, sequence, freshness, policy, state, and authority checks
  • Human approval bound to the exact action and re-evaluated before dispatch
  • Machine-readable allow, deny, hold, and reason state without implicit fallback
03
Execution and degraded operationsMonitor the boundary after approval and preserve the restrictive path when evidence becomes unreliable.
  • Verified action delivery, state reconciliation, and degraded-condition handling
  • Restrictive degraded modes, interruption, recovery, and return-to-normal authority
  • Operational visibility without hiding the autonomy or vehicle stack behind a generic connector claim
04
After-action assuranceMake the complete mission decision and result reconstructable for review and controlled improvement.
  • Proposal, evidence, checks, human decision, dispatch, result, and incident history
  • Policy and configuration change with re-test and approval dependencies
  • Reviewable mission evidence for engineering, safety, security, and accountable authorities

Current product view · synthetic workflow

Govern autonomy proposals before they become vehicle commands.

The public product view shows the current deterministic-policy and attributable-authority boundary. A THONIS-led walkthrough can examine a bounded, non-weaponized mission-assurance scenario before any controlled environment is considered.

This public view uses synthetic, rights-cleared data. It illustrates a workflow without exposing customer records or implementation-sensitive detail.

Public mission-assurance product view; tailored walkthrough available
Request a tailored walkthroughHow tailored walkthroughs work
ACTION PROPOSALTransit to waypoint C
Identity
PASS
Policy
PASS
Current state
PASS
Human authority
HOLD

Dispatch waits for attributable authority

Watch the product workflowOptional visual walkthrough · illustrative
DEXTRA / SENTINELSCROLL TO FOLLOW THE WORK

Illustrative sequence for Sentinel. Mission intent, autonomy proposals, current system state, policy, human authority, dispatch, degraded behavior, and after-action evidence live in separate components that fail differently and leave the operating decision hard to reconstruct. Prepare and test the mission, govern each consequential proposal against current policy and state, preserve attributable authority, monitor the execution boundary, restrict degraded operation, and keep the complete after-action record together. Autonomy may propose and adapt. Deterministic policy, current system state, and attributable human authority control consequential dispatch. Lethal and payload-release functions remain outside the product charter.

  1. 01Where the work breaks

    The action path is split when it matters most.

    Mission intent, autonomy proposals, current system state, policy, human authority, dispatch, degraded behavior, and after-action evidence live in separate components that fail differently and leave the operating decision hard to reconstruct.

    MISSION DEMO-RECON-01 · POLICY V4

    navigate_to → uav-01

    Require human approval
    Requester
    planner-alpha (autonomy_planner)
    Authority level
    HUMAN_IN_THE_LOOP
    Target
    47.3995, 8.5445 @ 55 m AGL

    An autonomous action, queued and waiting rather than dispatched.

    SIMULATION · NON-PRODUCTIONA proposed action, before anything is allowed to happen

  2. 02What changes

    Move autonomy assurance from disconnected tests to continuous mission evidence.

    Prepare and test the mission, govern each consequential proposal against current policy and state, preserve attributable authority, monitor the execution boundary, restrict degraded operation, and keep the complete after-action record together.

    DETERMINISTIC VERIFIER

    Twenty-five checks, all passing, still not enough

    policy_currentsignature_validposition_in_fenceenergy_reservelink_ok
    Policy digest
    c3b7db4a1edd
    Vehicle state
    uav-01 FRESH · 14 sats · 75% reserve

    The verifier is deterministic and authoritative. AI is advisory only.

    SIMULATION · NON-PRODUCTIONEvery gate green, by a verifier that does not guess

  3. 03Where authority stops

    Connect the autonomy and vehicle stack without collapsing command, safety, and mission authority.

    Autonomy may propose and adapt. Deterministic policy, current system state, and attributable human authority control consequential dispatch. Lethal and payload-release functions remain outside the product charter.

    AWAITING OPERATOR DECISION

    Running the mission and approving what it proposes are separate authorities

    Held
    Required capability
    approval:decide
    Your session
    Does not hold it

    This request is held for a named human approver. Passing every check does not dispatch it.

    SIMULATION · NON-PRODUCTIONThe product stating, in the interface, that it will not proceed

  4. 04What you are left with

    A governed action path with reconstructable mission evidence

    Teams can explain why an action was allowed, denied, changed, interrupted, or recovered without treating autonomy, vehicle control, and human responsibility as interchangeable.

    Scope a Sentinel evaluation

    DISPOSITION

    Recorded and attributed to the person who made it

    ApproveReject
    Justification
    Recorded and attributed to you

    The after-action record carries the action, the checks, the person, and their stated reason.

    SIMULATION · NON-PRODUCTIONAn attributable decision, kept for the after-action review

Illustrative sequence · not a customer result Human authority remains explicit

What changes in daily work

Where Sentinel helps

THE FRICTION

The action path is split when it matters most.

Mission intent, autonomy proposals, current system state, policy, human authority, dispatch, degraded behavior, and after-action evidence live in separate components that fail differently and leave the operating decision hard to reconstruct.

THE COMPOUNDING VALUE

History becomes operating context

Teams can explain why an action was allowed, denied, changed, interrupted, or recovered without treating autonomy, vehicle control, and human responsibility as interchangeable.

One guided operating flow

Prepare, test, authorize, monitor, and review the mission without losing human authority.

  1. 01

    Connect

    Establish explicit planner, simulator, vehicle, identity, telemetry, policy, and evidence boundaries with least authority.

  2. 02

    Prepare

    Build the mission package, capabilities, constraints, policy version, approval path, and expected outcomes.

  3. 03

    Test

    Exercise normal, edge, degraded, denied, and recovery conditions before operational use.

  4. 04

    Authorize

    Bind the required approval to the exact action, mission, platform, policy, and current state; re-check before dispatch.

  5. 05

    Execute and monitor

    Use a verified boundary, reconcile acknowledgement and state, surface drift, and apply the most restrictive safe behavior when evidence is missing.

  6. 06

    Review and improve

    Preserve the proposal, checks, decision, result, incident context, and controlled policy change in one after-action history.

Recognizable starting workflows

Keep assurance connected from autonomy integration through degraded operations and after-action learning.

01

Mission preparation and assurance testing

One testable mission-assurance case that connects intent, constraints, scenarios, findings, corrections, and readiness decisions.
For
Autonomy engineers, test teams, integrators, and safety or security reviewers
What keeps breaking
Mission, policy, platform capability, expected outcome, and edge-case evidence are assembled in separate tools and review artifacts.
02

Governed action execution

An attributable proposal-to-result path that fails closed when required identity, policy, state, authority, or acknowledgement is missing.
For
Operators, mission authorities, autonomy systems, and vehicle integrators
What keeps breaking
A planner proposal can cross policy, identity, state, approval, dispatch, and acknowledgement boundaries without one accountable record.
03

Degraded operations and after-action review

Restrictive degraded behavior, visible uncertainty, controlled recovery, and one reconstructable after-action evidence record.
For
Operations, incident response, mission assurance, safety, and engineering teams
What keeps breaking
Teams cannot reconstruct what the system knew, which restrictions applied, who authorized action, or how recovery changed the mission state.

Integration, compliance, and trust

Connect the autonomy and vehicle stack without collapsing command, safety, and mission authority.

Integration design, safeguards and compliance scope
AUTHORITATIVE INPUTS

Mission planning, simulation, identity, policy, autonomy, safety, security, and telemetry systems retain their specialized functions and authoritative state.

SENTINEL

Sentinel keeps the mission, proposal, current policy and state, authority decision, execution result, degraded response, and after-action evidence connected.

CONTROLLED OUTPUTS

Verified simulator, vehicle-control, monitoring, incident, and mission-record boundaries receive only the scoped actions and records their contracts permit.

Every customer environment requires explicit capability, identity, command, acknowledgement, failure, recovery, safety, and security verification before operational use.

Fail closed

Unknown or invalid identity, policy, state, approval, sequence, or acknowledgement cannot become an implicit allow.

Attributable authority

A consequential approval applies only to the exact mission, action, platform, policy, and current state that the person reviewed.

Non-weapons boundary

Targeting, lethality, payload employment, and weapons-release functions are outside the product charter.

Sentinel can apply customer-selected mission, safety, cybersecurity, autonomy, test, airworthiness, and authorization policies as governed requirements. Operational approval, certification, airworthiness, Government validation, and platform acceptance remain specific external decisions.

Authority boundary: Autonomy may propose and adapt. Deterministic policy, current system state, and attributable human authority control consequential dispatch. Lethal and payload-release functions remain outside the product charter.

Start with the workflow that keeps breaking

Scope a Sentinel evaluation

Describe the non-weaponized mission, planner and vehicle boundary, authority model, telemetry, safety and security policy, degraded-mode expectations, test environment, and required after-action evidence. Do not send controlled mission data, credentials, or keys through first contact.

Scope a Sentinel evaluation