Boundaries must be conveyed through behaviour, not only manuals
Aliases: just-in-time limitation · capability refusal · behavioural boundary cue
What it is
Behavioural capability disclosure makes a robot slow, refuse, request confirmation, demonstrate sensing range, or enter a conservative mode near a capability boundary. Documentation remains useful, but a limit found only in a manual is detached from the object, time, and delegation in which it matters.
Why it happens
Situated behaviour supplies condition, consequence, and alternative together, supporting memory better than an abstract rule. Consistent refusal prevents occasional success from being mistaken for support. Silent failure or inconsistent acceptance makes the boundary appear random and invites trial-and-error exploration.
Studying it
Manual, situated notice, behavioural refusal, and combinations can be compared on novel edge cases using correct delegation, recall, workaround attempts, recovery, and retention. Capability must be held equal across conditions. Reason and alternative can be manipulated separately to test transfer.
Where it stops holding
People should not learn limits through dangerous failure; disclosure occurs in a safe state. Excessive conservative refusal creates under-use and bypass. Complex legal and maintenance constraints still need reference documentation, and simulated fear should not replace a concrete sensing or control explanation.
Applying it
- Check object, environment, and confidence at submission; refuse before motion and identify a condition the user can change.
- Express uncertainty by visible slowing, stopping outside the boundary, and confirmation rather than silent mid-task cessation.
- Test transfer from one observed refusal to novel cases while monitoring capability underestimation.