Product Launch
A new authorisation layer for counter drone systemsWhen the evidence fades, the authority to act should fade with it
Grounded in the physics of the evidence itself. Patent pending.
Protecting a site from hostile drones means making an irreversible decision from evidence that is never perfect and never still. The signals that identify a distant drone, its light, its radar return, its radio traces, carry only so much information, and how much is set by physics: range, atmosphere, angle, noise. Worse, that information is not steady. The moment a drone slips behind a building or a track is lost, the flow of fresh evidence collapses toward nothing.
Most systems treat the decision to act as a switch. Once permission is granted, it tends to stay on, even after the evidence that justified it has gone. That is the gap where the worst mistakes happen: acting on a target the sensors can no longer truly see, or on something that should never have been touched at all.
A physics problem, not an engineering one
This is not a bug to be coded around. The limit is physical and informational: how much the evidence can tell you, and how quickly that certainty decays. No amount of software removes it. So we did not try to. We built the decision around the physics instead of pretending it away.
How we address it
We make the authority to act a living thing, tied directly to the evidence. Permission is granted only while the physical evidence clearly identifies a genuine threat, and it is re-earned continuously, moment to moment. Because it can only strengthen while fresh evidence is actually arriving, the authority is bound to the flow of information itself.
When the evidence stops, the authority expires on its own, within a fraction of a second, and the system returns to safe. Authority cannot outlive the evidence that justified it. The same evidence-grounded approach places a firm limit on the chance of ever acting against a protected object, such as a crewed or friendly aircraft.
What it is, and what it is not
It is
The decision and the permission. It identifies whether action is warranted and lawful, and hands a short-lived, self-expiring authorisation to a separate, certified system.
It is not
A weapon. It never disables a drone. It lowers and bounds the chance of a wrong call; it does not claim certainty, because the underlying evidence has physical limits.
See it in practice
Three scenarios, switchable at any time: a confirmed threat that loses its evidence, a track that might be a protected aircraft, and a sensor that cannot prove who it is. Press play for the narrated walkthrough.
Scenario
The scene
Confidence in identification
A suspected hostile drone is detected. Nothing has been authorised yet.
Why we develop this
Physivitis builds solutions that address the bottlenecks stopping industries from scaling, securing and being effective for the AI and quantum era. Most of those bottlenecks are physics problems, not engineering ones, and we address them using physics, the laws of nature. This innovation is one example: a decision layer that grounds authority in the physics of the evidence.
Work with us
This innovation is patent pending and validated in simulation. We are seeking design partners in defence and critical-infrastructure protection to take it from concept to a fielded evaluation, integrated with their own certified systems. If that is you, we would like to talk.
Start a conversationPatent pending. This article describes the concept at a high level and does not disclose the underlying methods.