Battery-electric and hybrid ships combine battery energy storage systems with networked control, machine learning state estimation, digital twins, high-capacity charging, and, in some applications, second-life cells. These configurations introduce risks for which maritime approval instruments may lack verifiable acceptance criteria. This paper defines a Regulatory Readiness Level (RRL) from 0 (unrecognised) to 4 (verifiable acceptance) and applies it to nine frontier risks in three families: cyber-physical, AI-driven, and second-life/lifecycle. The assessment covers IMO, EMSA, IACS, IEC, UL, NFPA, and battery requirements of five classification societies, using instruments in force on 31 July 2026. No risk reaches RRL 4 under the study’s target. Median readiness is RRL 2: one risk is at RRL 0, two at RRL 1, four at RRL 2, and two at RRL 3. The two RRL 3 cases illustrate different limitations: state-of-health estimation is verified periodically without qualification between tests, whereas mixed-chemistry and mixed-state-of-health packs are addressed through prohibition rather than qualification. Baseline priority places AI3, auditability of AI safety functions, first, with AI2 and SL1 in the next band; SL1 is sensitive to aggregation. Ordinal dominance excludes CP2, CP3, and SL1 from the lead without assuming equal spacing. Sensitivity analysis shows that uncertainty in readiness classification has a larger effect on ranking than uncertainty in severity and exposure. Adjacent-sector assurance mechanisms provide templates for maritime incorporation, and the paper proposes an acceptance objective, verification method, and regulatory vehicle for each risk.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rahimpour et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: