ECOSYSTEM RESEARCH · NORTH AMERICA
How could AVs change your operations?
Start with your business or public service. Follow the work, the benefits and the responsibilities from the vehicle to the people and places it serves.
FOLLOW THE COMPLETE SERVICE
- 01
The vehicle arrives
What does the operator complete?
- 02
Another team receives the work
Who assists, checks, charges or resolves a problem?
- 03
The service succeeds
Did the person, delivery or next departure reach its agreed outcome?
An improvement at one step can create work or waiting at the next.
WHAT THE RESEARCH ASKS
What improves and who carries the work?
Beyond the Curb examines how autonomous vehicles could change arrivals, staffing, receiving, parking, facilities, energy and public services. The useful unit of investigation is a defined process at an actual organization or site.
For each possibility, identify who benefits, who pays, who can approve the change and who accepts the next task. Compare it with a realistic operating alternative and record the evidence that would change the decision.
Category research snapshot: 6 November 2026; directory updated 7 November 2026. Category pathways are hypotheses. Named organizations are screening examples, with no participation or endorsement implied. This research has not field-validated company-level AV outcomes.
FIND YOUR PLACE IN THE ECOSYSTEM
Explore the operating change
Choose a category, then examine the opportunity, additional work and next evidence needed.
Search, organization type and dimension filters apply together. Search includes the examples and text inside each category.
Loading categories…
No categories match these filters
Try a broader term, another dimension or clear the filters.
The full directory below contains 471 company and service-provider records and 70 public-authority records. This category explorer shows selected examples, up to five per category. Inclusion identifies a research question; it does not establish measured impact, readiness or an AV contract.
THE FULL RESEARCH DIRECTORY
Find an organization
471 company and service-provider records, plus 70 public authorities and institutions. Search the full register or narrow the operating question.
Dated research snapshot: 7 November 2026. 471 company records meet the documentary criteria for their stated roles. The AUMOVIO record uses current Elektrobit evidence; historical PlaxidityX service continuity remains unverified. Inclusion establishes research relevance, with no participation, endorsement, vendor relationship or measured AV benefit implied.
Filters apply together. Category and dimension refer to the same operating role. Open a record for its selection basis, dated sources, identity notes and potential category impacts. Every company profile includes a completeness note and proposed handoff tests. All company and authority roles include a two-way impact brief; evidence gaps remain explicit.
565 two-way role briefs across 541 organization records. Latest desk review: 564 plausible, untested briefs and one unresolved applicability (Siemens regional availability). Actual AV impacts remain unknown for all roles. Each explains how AVs could affect the organization and how the organization could affect AV operations, with conditions, handoffs, measures and evidence that would overturn a claimed benefit. These are research hypotheses; assumptions, unresolved applicability and unverified impacts remain explicit. Search includes the brief text.
Loading organization directory…
No organizations match these filters
Try a broader term or clear the directory filters.
PROPOSED TESTS
Test the work between organizations
Three neutral review-ready protocols ask what improves, for whom, under what conditions, and what evidence would overturn the conclusion. No organization or site is a participant. Participant review and acceptance: not confirmed. Field tests: not run. Outcomes: Unknown.
81 deterministic synthetic scenarios and three fictional depot timelines challenge selected assumptions only. Entry/receipt model variables are proxies, some party workloads are unquantified, and grid frequencies are not probabilities. No field savings, safety or readiness is established.
Agree service quality, access and safety criteria, task owners and payers before measuring. Count failed and difficult cases and each party's work separately. Extra work may support an accepted quality/access gain; it does not prove a saving.
H01 · Arrival to usable hotel entry
- Handoff
- AV operator ↔ hotel or destination
- Claim to test
- Coordinated arrival information and an accepted assistance handoff could improve usable entry without leaving unowned guest or luggage tasks.
- Complete-service endpoint
- The arrival party reaches its intended usable entry, receives requested assistance, and the destination confirms any agreed handoff. Curb arrival alone does not close the event.
- Eligible population
- All eligible arrival parties in the agreed geography, operating window and service/access scope. Retain assistance needs, luggage, language barriers, after-hours arrivals, late entry and failed entry. Specify any excluded service before comparison.
- Comparable baseline
- Comparable arrivals under the current mode with the same destination, demand window, access needs and assistance entitlement. Establish what help the current provider actually supplies; do not assume a human driver provides it.
- Sending duties to confirm
- Operator dispatch/remote support provides an agreed arrival point, event reference, assistance request and escalation contact. Confirm what it can lawfully share and when its responsibility ends.
- Receiving duties to confirm
- Destination arrival/access lead explicitly accepts the location and any assistance task, staffing window, equipment, contact and completion signal. A message sent is not acceptance.
- Customer and access perspective
- A guest/access representative checks whether the route and assistance are usable and how a guest can decline, obtain help or report a failed entry.
- Owner and payer to confirm
- Confirm accountable service owner, hotel duty manager and operator escalation lead. Name the payer for standby, luggage, assistance, missed arrivals and recovery; all are unconfirmed.
- Evidence that would overturn the claim
- Overturn the claimed complete-service efficiency if total comparable work or elapsed time does not improve, or the claimed access improvement if usable entry/assistance worsens. Faster operator release is insufficient when guest tasks are unowned. A separately accepted access gain with more work requires a named payer and tradeoff decision.
Proposed sequence
- Map current curb-to-entry tasks and record who performs each one.
- Agree location, assistance entitlement, acceptance signal, staffing and timeout/recovery route.
- Observe comparable arrival cohorts; log each party from arrival notice through usable entry or recorded failure.
- Reconcile operator and destination event records, customer access feedback and task time; retain disputed events.
- Review every exception with both sides before assessing the specific efficiency or access claim.
Measures and denominators
- Usable entries / all eligible arrival parties; late, failed and unknown completion counts.
- Wait and curb/entry elapsed time separately; median and tail values, including late cases.
- Person-minutes by operator, destination and customer, including standby allocation, calls, luggage and recovery.
- Assistance availability, refused/failed assistance and complaints; agreed access and safety guardrails.
Assumptions: The destination is willing, permitted and equipped to accept assistance duties. Arrival information is accurate and reaches an accountable person. Current and proposed access entitlements are genuinely comparable.
Neutral draft; practitioner review not confirmed, field observation not run. Begin with passive observation only after actual permissions; this draft authorizes no operating pilot.
R01 · Dispatch to accepted order receipt
- Handoff
- Delivery provider ↔ retailer and customer
- Claim to test
- Better notification and a defined retrieval/exception process could improve accepted receipt, while an unattended transport leg could transfer handling and recovery to the retailer or customer.
- Complete-service endpoint
- The intended recipient accepts the correct order under the agreed receipt conditions, or a documented recovery/return is completed. Dispatch and vehicle arrival are intermediate milestones.
- Eligible population
- All eligible orders accepted into the service window, including absent recipients, access constraints, late handoffs, unclaimed goods, incorrect orders and returns. Do not remove failures from cost or success denominators.
- Comparable baseline
- Comparable order mix, customer availability, distance, access needs, handling requirements and time window under the current delivery process. Separate routing/software and staffing changes from autonomy.
- Sending duties to confirm
- Retailer confirms order identity, readiness, packaging/handling requirements, loading custody and accepted delivery instructions to the actual delivery provider.
- Receiving duties to confirm
- Provider and intended customer confirm notification, authorized access, custody/receipt evidence, retrieval duties, timeout and recovery. A provider status update is not customer receipt.
- Customer and access perspective
- An access/customer representative reviews physical retrieval, notification usability, assistance, failed collection, disputes and any additional customer time or charge.
- Owner and payer to confirm
- Confirm retailer dispatch/returns owner, provider service owner and customer-facing escalation. Assign loading, retrieval assistance, spoilage/damage, unclaimed goods, refunds and return work; payers remain unconfirmed.
- Evidence that would overturn the claim
- Overturn an efficiency claim if comparable receipt/return work or cost does not improve. Overturn the receipt-quality claim if accepted receipt, condition or access fails its pre-agreed criterion. Provider minutes saved do not establish a saving for customers or the retailer; improved receipt with more work needs an explicit tradeoff and payer.
Proposed sequence
- Map preparation, loading, delivery, retrieval, receipt and reverse-logistics tasks.
- Agree custody, receipt evidence, notification, assistance, timeout, exceptions and cost allocation.
- Observe paired comparable cohorts from accepted order through receipt or completed return.
- Link loading, vehicle, customer and return events using anonymized order IDs; retain missing/disputed receipt.
- Review customer and store burden alongside provider savings and accepted-service rates.
Measures and denominators
- Accepted receipts / all eligible orders; late, unclaimed, damaged, returned and unknown receipt counts.
- Elapsed order-ready-to-receipt time, customer retrieval time and tail delays.
- Person-minutes and costs separately for retailer, provider and customer; include loading, retrieval, calls, failed attempts, refunds and returns.
- Custody/condition errors, access exclusions and agreed service-quality guardrails.
Assumptions: Receipt can be verified without treating a vehicle status as customer confirmation. Customers can perform the proposed retrieval or obtain agreed assistance. Order condition and reverse-logistics requirements remain comparable.
Neutral draft; practitioner review not confirmed, field observation not run. Begin with passive observation only after actual permissions; this draft authorizes no operating pilot.
D01 · Application to usable depot capacity
- Handoff
- Depot ↔ utility and public authority
- Claim to test
- A complete load profile and accepted interface plan could reduce application rework. Fleet readiness still depends on usable capacity, property works, approvals and charging constraints; installed ports alone are insufficient.
- Complete-service endpoint
- The site has authorized, commissioned usable capacity under documented limits and enough energy/time to meet the agreed ready-vehicle departure requirement. Record energization and ready vehicles as separate milestones.
- Eligible population
- All scoped connection/upgrade milestones and vehicles required in the agreed departure windows. Include application revisions, equipment delays, conditional approvals, constrained charging and missed departures.
- Comparable baseline
- Use the same electric fleet, energy per vehicle, usable site capacity, charging window and site/service conditions to isolate autonomy. Separately assess any changed fleet size, utilization, propulsion or power demand.
- Sending duties to confirm
- Depot applicant and designer submit the accepted load profile, site control, drawings, milestones and accountable contacts. Identify generator interconnection separately from ordinary customer load service.
- Receiving duties to confirm
- Serving utility verifies its actual remit and supplies study/connection conditions and responsibilities. Property owner, electrical contractor and actual authority accept their own works, inspections and approval scope.
- Customer and access perspective
- Fleet operations and affected property/community representatives review departure needs, curtailment, noise/access constraints and contingency impacts. Authority participation and approvals remain unconfirmed.
- Owner and payer to confirm
- Confirm applicant project owner, serving utility unit, property owner, contractor, commissioning authority and any public decision-maker. Assign design revisions, network works, assets, tariffs, curtailment and contingency costs; no duty or capacity is presumed.
- Evidence that would overturn the claim
- Overturn an application-efficiency claim if comparable cross-party rework/cost does not improve. Overturn a readiness claim if accepted usable capacity, delivered energy or required departures fail. A faster application or more installed ports does not establish earlier usable service; a quality/reliability gain with extra work needs a separately accepted tradeoff.
Proposed sequence
- Document current service, serving entity, site constraints and a time-based vehicle energy/load profile.
- Agree complete-application requirements, milestone dependencies, ownership, conditions and evidence of acceptance.
- Track application, studies/design, equipment, works, inspections, energization and usable-capacity acceptance separately.
- Reconcile meter/charger energy and actual departures against all required vehicles and windows.
- Review applicant, property, utility and authority rework/cost separately; isolate EV demand from autonomy.
Measures and denominators
- Accepted applications/revisions, unresolved conditions and person-hours by applicant, property, utility and authority.
- Calendar days by milestone and critical path; no addition of parallel durations as if sequential.
- Firm/usable kW, charging hours, delivered kWh, efficiency assumptions and measured losses.
- Ready vehicles / all vehicles required at departure; curtailed, late and unknown readiness cases.
- Cost, outage/curtailment, permit/inspection and site/community guardrails separately from workload.
Assumptions: The actual serving entity accepts the proposed load/service scope. Equipment, property works, utility work and approvals have explicit dependencies. The simplified energy bound omits scheduling, arrival, taper, compatibility, outages and local approvals and therefore cannot guarantee readiness.
Neutral draft; practitioner review not confirmed, field observation not run. Begin with passive observation only after actual permissions; this draft authorizes no operating pilot.
Source metadata reviewed on 7 November 2026. Unestablished publication dates, access failures and publisher-only identity checks remain labeled. This bibliographic review does not revalidate every company claim or establish measured AV impact.
How organizations qualify and what this directory can establish
Each record needs an identifiable organization or operating unit, a documented North American role, a concrete operating workflow and public source support. Unknown eligibility remains flagged. Documented ordinary or adjacent capabilities do not establish AV deployment, a contract or an observed outcome.
Records are shown alphabetically. The separate category explorer retains up to five illustrative examples per category; those selections are not rankings. Some sources and roles are historical, issuer-reported or carried forward from earlier research. Publication dates, access limits and unresolved questions are shown when recorded. Missing information is labeled rather than inferred.
All 471 company profiles have the same core research fields and proposed handoff coverage for their documented roles. Completeness of these research fields includes clearly recorded unknowns; it does not certify every company fact or source as current. Potential impacts and handoff tests are category hypotheses to investigate. No company-specific impact magnitude is established. Related brands or units can share a record; the directory is not a count of unrelated ultimate owners. It is a bounded research frame, not an exhaustive list of every affected organization.
Directory snapshot · BTC-ECOSYSTEM-VALIDATION-2026-11-07.6
FROM A CATEGORY TO A SPECIFIC PROCESS
Five worked research examples
Public-source context and proposed investigations. These are not participating study sites or completed field trials.
CHOOSE YOUR NEXT TEST
Build a shared handoff record
Work through one process with the people who send, receive and support the service.
Your entries stay in this open page. They are not submitted or saved, and reload clears them. Download a text copy to keep your work. Avoid entering personal or confidential information. Site visits are covered by the privacy notice.
Your handoff record
A proposed test to discuss with the relevant parties. It does not establish an agreed duty, permission or demonstrated benefit.
KEEP FOLLOWING THE QUESTION
Connect the process to a property decision
The next step may be better arrival information, agreed assistance coverage, a funding discussion or a justified change to space. Establish the operating constraint before choosing the investment.
AI tools supported research and drafting. Human domain review and field validation remain unfinished. Source links provide dated context; local authority and accepted duties must be established for each application.