Physical AI deployments — humanoid robots, autonomous mobile robots, surgical systems, autonomous vehicles — are scaling faster than the safety vocabulary used to describe them. Safety claims across organizations are not comparable. Adjacent fields solved this problem with maturity models: CMMI for software process, AI Safety Levels (ASL) for AI safety posture, ISO/IEC 33001 for process assessment, PCI DSS for payment-industry security. Physical AI lacks an equivalent. This paper proposes the Physical AI Safety Maturity Model (PAS-MM), a five-level classification system: Ad-hoc, Documented, Compliant, Certified, and Defense-in-depth. Levels are anchored to recognized functional-safety standards (IEC 61508 SIL, ISO 13849 PL) and to the Physical AI Safety Stack introduced in a forthcoming companion paper. PAS-MM includes a 30-question self-assessment instrument across six categories: hazard analysis, software safety, hardware safety, certification posture, operational monitoring, and incident response. A 0–90 score maps to a PAS Level via a defined rubric. Application to approximately 30 publicly-known Physical AI organizations, using public information only, shows clustering at PAS 1–2, a small population at PAS 3–4, and no organization at PAS 5. The paper concludes with adoption guidance for analysts, regulators, insurers, customers, and Physical AI organizations.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Mati Melchior
Oldham Council
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Mati Melchior (Wed,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69fed19ab9154b0b82879077 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20048267