# Fact Cards — SQ1: Existing / competitor GPS-denied UAV navigation systems

> Mode A Phase 2 — engine Step 3 (Fact Extraction & Evidence Cards). Extracted from sources logged in `../01_source_registry/SQ1_existing_systems.md` (see `../01_source_registry/00_summary.md` for index). Confidence labels: ✅ High (L1 / verified source code), ⚠️ Medium (L1/L2 with caveat), ❓ Low (L3/L4 inferential). Bound to sub-questions in `../00_question_decomposition.md`.
>
> Index: [`../00_summary.md`](../00_summary.md). Sibling categories: SQ6 ([FC external positioning](SQ6_fc_external_positioning.md)), SQ2 ([canonical pipeline](SQ2_canonical_pipeline.md)), C1 ([VIO](C1_vio.md)), C2 ([VPR](C2_vpr.md)), C3 ([matchers](C3_matchers.md)).

**Facts in this file**: #11–#20 (peer/adjacent systems: OSCAR, Auterion Artemis, Vantor Raptor, NGPS, SPRIN-D winner, RTAB-Map/ORB-SLAM3 pruning, DSMAC/TERCOM lineage, hierarchical matching SOTA, AerialExtreMatch benchmark, DARPA FLA + USAF SBIR) + SQ1 working conclusions.

---

## SQ1 — Existing / competitor GPS-denied UAV navigation systems

### Fact #11 — Twist Robotics OSCAR is a deployed Ukrainian peer system in the same architectural class as this project
- **Statement**: Twist Robotics (Ukraine) has a fielded camera + map-matching navigation module called OSCAR (Optical System of Coordinates with Automatic Relocalisation). The vendor states the system "captures the terrain, identifies landmarks, compares them with a map, determines coordinates, and transmits them to the autopilot as a reliable GPS signal" — the same five-stage architecture this project is building. Vendor-stated specs: ≤20 m accuracy without cumulative error, day/night/fog operation, and operational deployment of "more than 500,000 km across 25,000 combat missions over 24 months". Hardware includes active cooling, indicating a non-trivial onboard compute (likely Jetson-class). **No public independent benchmark of the 20 m number.**
- **Source**: Source #25, Source #26
- **Phase**: Phase 2
- **Target Audience**: System architects + AC owners (existence-of-peer evidence, not implementation guide)
- **Confidence**: ✅ for "deployed at scale on Ukrainian combat platforms"; ⚠️ for "20 m accuracy" (vendor self-report); ❓ for "fully resistant to spoofing and jamming" (claim not independently verified)
- **Related Dimension**: SQ1, SQ8 (anti-spoofing claim audit), SQ9 (synthesis — ours must beat or at least match this in the operational regime)
- **Fit Impact**: **establishes feasibility floor** — a Ukrainian peer is operating a similar architecture against the same threat environment our system targets. Project framing must explicitly differentiate (e.g., 1 km AGL vs unspecified OSCAR altitude; 8 h endurance vs unspecified OSCAR endurance; AC-NEW-4 honest covariance contract vs OSCAR's unspecified covariance reporting).

### Fact #12 — Auterion Artemis is a production-shipping fixed-wing one-way attack drone with Ukraine-validated GPS-denied navigation, defining the production benchmark for this class
- **Statement**: Auterion completed the US Defense Innovation Unit Artemis program in October 2025, delivering a Shahed-class deep-strike drone with up to 1,000-mile range and up to 40 kg warhead, running on **Auterion Skynode N mission computer + Auterion Visual Navigation system + built-in terminal guidance**. Government evaluators signed off after operational flight tests in Ukraine including ground launch, GPS and GPS-denied navigation, long-range transit, and terminal engagement. Manufacturing is being established in US, UA, and DE; Auterion is offering the system to the US Department of War and allied nations.
- **Source**: Source #31; Source #32 confirms Skynode S sibling architecture (NPU-equipped companion).
- **Phase**: Phase 2
- **Target Audience**: System architects (production-pattern reference)
- **Confidence**: ✅
- **Related Dimension**: SQ1 (closest commercial production peer), SQ9 (architecture template)
- **Fit Impact**: **establishes production reference architecture** — companion-class autopilot + visual navigation + terminal guidance is shipping at production scale to a US defense customer. Implication: building a per-FC adapter (project decision in SQ6) is consistent with what production stacks already do; integrating against the Artemis architecture is realistic; competing on price + Ukraine-specific operational tuning + AC-NEW-4 honest-covariance contract is a viable differentiation.

### Fact #13 — Vantor Raptor is a production COTS visual-GPS-replacement software suite, demonstrating that "branded sat-tile basemap + on-drone vision software" is a viable commercial pattern
- **Statement**: Vantor Raptor product family (Guide / Sync / Ace) provides vision-based GPS replacement using the drone's existing camera plus Vantor's "100 million-plus sq km of highly accurate 3D terrain data" (Vivid Terrain, vendor-stated 3 m accuracy). Vendor-demonstrated absolute accuracy: **<7 m in all dimensions** for aerial position (Guide), **<3 m** for ground coordinate extraction (Sync, Ace). Works at night and at low altitudes. Platform-agnostic, deployable on commodity hardware, integrates with existing onboard cameras. Inertial Labs has published a VINS-integrated Raptor Guide white paper. Recent partnerships: Niantic Spatial (Dec 2025) for unified air-to-ground positioning in GPS-denied areas; Maxar partnership with AIDC (Sep 2025) for Taiwan UAV resilience against GPS interference.
- **Source**: Source #30
- **Phase**: Phase 2
- **Target Audience**: Architecture / business decision-makers (build-vs-buy framing)
- **Confidence**: ✅ for product existence + claimed accuracy bounds (vendor primary); ⚠️ for whether Vantor's commercial accuracy figures hold under the project's specific Ukrainian-steppe + active-conflict-tile-staleness conditions
- **Related Dimension**: SQ1 (commercial), C2/C3 (commercial alternatives to building ourselves), SQ8 (basemap as a service vs offline cache)
- **Fit Impact**: **build-vs-buy lens** — Raptor Guide's <7 m claim is *better* than the project's AC-1.1 budget (≤80 m / 95% under AC-1.1.1), so it's not a disqualifier on accuracy. Reasons we still build vs buy: (a) Vantor is a US vendor; export / dual-use licensing into the Ukrainian battlefield is uncertain; (b) restrictions specify offline cache from the project's own Azaion Suite Satellite Service (AC-2.x), not Vantor's Vivid Terrain — replacing the basemap is non-negotiable; (c) covariance honesty contract (AC-NEW-4) and source-label contract (AC-1.4) are project-specific and may not be exposed by Vantor's API. **Outcome**: keep Raptor as a competitive comparator in `solution_draft01`, NOT as a candidate component to integrate.

### Fact #14 — snktshrma/ngps_flight (NGPS — ArduPilot GSoC 2024) is the closest open-source pipeline match to this project's exact C1+C2+C3+C5+C8 stack
- **Statement**: NGPS = ROS 2 + ArduPilot pipeline composed of three packages: **`ap_ngps_ros2`** (visual geo-localization at 1–2 Hz by matching live camera frames to georeferenced satellite imagery using **LightGlue + SuperPoint**, deep-learning-based feature matching), **`ap_ukf`** (Unscented Kalman Filter fusing NGPS absolute positions with VIO estimates), **`ap_vips`** (VIO providing relative pose). Output is fused odometry to ArduPilot's EKF (per related ArduPilot issue #23471, this is via `VISION_POSITION_ESTIMATE` requiring EKF source-set 2/3 with `EK3_SRC*_POSXY=Vision`). Project is published under ArduPilot's GSoC 2024 program. Sibling `ap_nongps` is an earlier OpenCV-based prototype.
- **Source**: Source #33
- **Phase**: Phase 2
- **Target Audience**: Implementer / Engineer
- **Confidence**: ✅ for project existence, component breakdown, and matcher choice (LightGlue+SuperPoint); ⚠️ for runtime behaviour under our exact constraints (Jetson Orin Nano, 1 km AGL, 17 m/s, 3 fps); ❓ for production hardening / covariance honesty / spoof-defence (none documented)
- **Related Dimension**: SQ1 (closest open-source peer), SQ2 (canonical pipeline confirmation), SQ3+SQ4 (architectural template for component candidate matrix), SQ6 (alternate AP transport debate)
- **Fit Impact**: **architectural template** — confirms the project's split (C1 VIO ↔ C2/C3 visual absolute ↔ C5 fusion ↔ C8 FC adapter) is canonical, not novel. Two concrete deltas:
  1. **Transport choice on AP**: NGPS uses `VISION_POSITION_ESTIMATE`. SQ6 picked `GPS_INPUT` because it carries `horiz_accuracy` directly, supports source-set switching via `MAV_CMD_SET_EKF_SOURCE_SET`, and avoids EKF-source-set reconfiguration. The trade-off (NGPS's path vs SQ6's pick) must be re-examined at design time before final AP-transport selection.
  2. **Estimator choice**: NGPS uses UKF; SQ3/SQ4 will compare UKF vs ESKF vs MSCKF vs factor-graph (GTSAM) on the same matrix.

### Fact #15 — RGB satellite-image matching as a *low-altitude* (<25 m AGL) localization technique is unreliable per the SPRIN-D Challenge; our 1 km AGL operates in the regime where the same authors note it "works reasonably well"
- **Statement**: The CTU Prague team's SPRIN-D winning paper directly states: *"Some teams used RGB satellite image-based matching, but this has proved to be highly unreliable at such low altitudes."* (referring to <25 m AGL). The paper's related-work review separately notes that *"high-altitude matching... works reasonably well, but at low altitudes (25 m) the viewpoint differs drastically, making roofs, facades, and vegetation inconsistent with satellite imagery."* The project operates at ≤1 km AGL — which is the *high-altitude* regime in the paper's terminology — making RGB sat-matching the appropriate technique class. The paper's CPU-only winning method (LiDAR heightmap-gradients + clustered particle filter) is **not** transferable to our hardware: our project has no LiDAR.
- **Source**: Source #28
- **Phase**: Phase 2
- **Target Audience**: Implementer / Engineer + Domain expert
- **Confidence**: ✅
- **Related Dimension**: SQ1, SQ5 (failure modes), SQ2 (canonical pipeline)
- **Fit Impact**: **disambiguates a potentially-disqualifying lesson** — the CTU paper's "RGB sat-matching is unreliable" finding does NOT disqualify our approach because the failure was caused by low-altitude viewpoint mismatch, which our 1 km AGL regime does not have. This must be cited explicitly in `solution_draft01` to pre-empt the natural objection from anyone who reads the paper. Separately, the CTU paper's specific lessons are still binding: VIO degrades catastrophically without IMU vibration isolation; magnetometer is unreliable near steel/concrete; "ability to recover from periods of high uncertainty and re-localize" matters more than instantaneous RMSE — this last lesson is a direct architectural input for AC-NEW-2 / AC-NEW-8.

### Fact #16 — RTAB-Map and ORB-SLAM3 both fail beyond 1 km / above 2 m/s flight in the SPRIN-D environment; our cruise profile (≤17 m/s, kilometers between satellite anchors) explicitly excludes both as primary candidates
- **Statement**: The SPRIN-D paper states: *"We tested state-of-the-art visual SLAM systems such as RTAB-Map and ORB-SLAM3 in a high-fidelity simulator, and found that both performance degraded significantly in a long-range scenario (beyond 1 km), as their memory and compute demands grow with the size of the environment. Moreover, RTAB-Map was unable to maintain quality odometry in faster flight speeds (beyond 2 m/s), while ORB-SLAM3 suffered from tracking loss in textureless areas."*
- **Source**: Source #28
- **Phase**: Phase 2
- **Target Audience**: Implementer / Engineer (component selection for C1)
- **Confidence**: ✅
- **Related Dimension**: SQ1, SQ3+SQ4 component C1 (VO/VIO), SQ5 (failure modes)
- **Fit Impact**: **prunes the C1 candidate landscape** — RTAB-Map and ORB-SLAM3 should not be pursued as C1 leads. Plausible C1 leads remain: VINS-Mono / VINS-Fusion / OpenVINS / OKVIS2 / DROID-SLAM / DPVO / pure VO baseline (KLT + RANSAC homography). NGPS (Fact #14) uses `ap_vips` = OpenVINS-class VIO — confirming an aligned community choice. Final C1 selection happens in SQ3+SQ4.

### Fact #17 — DSMAC + TERCOM lineage: pre-cached scene matching for downward-looking navigation is a 40+ year deployed technique class with documented sub-10 m terminal accuracy
- **Statement**: DSMAC (Digital Scene Matching Area Correlator) is an autonomous missile-guidance system based on area correlation of sensed downward-camera ground scenes against pre-stored reference imagery (often satellite reconnaissance). It achieves 3–10 m terminal accuracy by correlating buildings, road intersections, and distinctive terrain landmarks. Tomahawk: TERCOM (radar altimeter + DEM) for mid-flight + DSMAC for terminal guidance reduces CEP from ~30 m to "only meters". Documented combat record: 1991 Gulf War, >80% of 280 launched Tomahawks hit target. Recent miniaturisation: Destinus Ruta (300 km strike-class) is integrating UAV Navigation's (Spanish, Grupo Oesía) DSMAC-class system, validated in Ukrainian combat conditions including GNSS-denied / jamming / spoofing.
- **Source**: Source #36, Source #27
- **Phase**: Phase 2
- **Target Audience**: Domain expert + Decision-maker
- **Confidence**: ✅ for the lineage and Tomahawk performance numbers (DTIC + open-source); ⚠️ for the Ruta-specific "DSMAC operating principle" inference (Defense Express analyst inference, not vendor disclosure)
- **Related Dimension**: SQ1 (lineage), SQ8 (baseline accuracy expectations for AC-1.1.1 80 m / AC-NEW-4 false-position budget)
- **Fit Impact**: **establishes baseline accuracy expectations** — the technique class has documented sub-10 m accuracy in the cruise-missile-terminal regime. Our budget (AC-1.1.1: <80 m at 1 km AGL with ≥0.5 m/px tiles) is loose by comparison, indicating that the AC budget is *not* aggressive against the technique-class baseline — it is aggressive against the Jetson Orin Nano + 8-h-continuous + 25 W envelope. **Implication for AC-NEW-4**: claiming P(error >500 m) <0.1% per flight is consistent with the DSMAC-lineage class; an honestly-reported failure rate at this level is realistic, not unprecedented.

### Fact #18 — Hierarchical Image Matching (arXiv 2506.09748, June 2025) is a current academic SOTA pipeline for our exact problem, but uses DINOv2 — a heavyweight foundation model that must be benchmarked under our 25 W / 8 GB Jetson envelope before any selection
- **Statement**: 2025 academic SOTA pipeline structure: (1) image retrieval module (off-the-shelf, optimal-transport feature aggregation); (2) Semantic-Aware and Structure-Constrained Matching Module (SASCM) using **DINOv2** features + 4D correlation tensor + SoftMNN + 4D conv; (3) lightweight fine-grained matching module for pixel-level. Constructs UAV absolute visual localization without VIO/relative-localization dependence (retrieval-and-matching only). Evaluation on AerialVL + their own CS-UAV dataset claims superior accuracy under cross-source and cross-temporal variation.
- **Source**: Source #29
- **Phase**: Phase 2
- **Target Audience**: Implementer / Engineer + Domain expert
- **Confidence**: ✅ for pipeline structure and method; ⚠️ for "superior" claim (single-paper benchmark; AerialExtreMatch evaluates 16 methods with broader rigor — Source #34 is the better cross-method ranker); ❓ for Jetson-Orin-Nano runtime (no published number)
- **Related Dimension**: SQ1 (academic SOTA), C2 (VPR), C3 (cross-domain registration), SQ5 (foundation-model-on-Jetson failure mode)
- **Fit Impact**: **academic-SOTA snapshot, candidate template** — the retrieval → semantic-aware coarse → fine-grained pipeline is a candidate template for our C2+C3, but DINOv2 introduces a Jetson-deployment risk that must be quantified before commitment. Candidate-level decision: include DINOv2-based pipelines (AnyLoc, BoQ, this paper's SASCM) in the C2/C3 candidate matrix with mandatory MVE on Jetson Orin Nano under our exact frame size and 3 fps cadence. Reject DINOv2 if total inference latency cannot be brought under (400 ms - other-stages budget) at INT8 / fp16. Per Source #28 lesson, classical matchers (LightGlue+SuperPoint as in NGPS) should also be in the matrix as the "simple baseline / known-Jetson-runnable" option.

### Fact #19 — AerialExtreMatch (2025) is the academic benchmark our C2+C3 candidate matrix must publish numbers against, with 32 difficulty-stratified cells exposing exactly the cross-source / cross-pitch / cross-scale failure modes our project will face
- **Statement**: AerialExtreMatch publishes (a) 1.5 M synthetic train pairs (RGB+depth, diverse UAV/satellite viewpoints); (b) ~30,000 evaluation pairs in **32 difficulty levels** stratified by overlap (4 bins: <20%, 20–40%, 40–60%, >60%), pitch difference (4 bins: 50–55°, 55–60°, 60–65°, 65–70°), and scale variation (2 bins: 1–2×, >2×); (c) a real-world UAV-localization split captured with DJI M300 RTK + H20T against UAV-derived orthomosaic/DSM AND lower-quality satellite maps. The benchmark evaluates 16 representative detector-based and detector-free image matching methods.
- **Source**: Source #34
- **Phase**: Phase 2
- **Target Audience**: Domain expert + Implementer
- **Confidence**: ✅
- **Related Dimension**: SQ1 (academic landscape), SQ7 (datasets), C2 (VPR), C3 (cross-domain registration)
- **Fit Impact**: **defines the C2/C3 evaluation matrix** — every C2/C3 candidate going into `solution_draft01` must report numbers on AerialExtreMatch's 32 difficulty cells, with at least the high-pitch (65–70°) and high-scale (>2×) cells representing our worst-case (UAV vs satellite tile geometry mismatch + ortho-rectification residual). The dataset's real-world UAV-localization split with both UAV-orthomosaic AND satellite-map references mirrors our project's offline-cache-tile semantics directly.

### Fact #20 — DARPA FLA + USAF SBIR establish the US-defense-program tailwind, but do not directly validate the project's specific regime (fixed-wing, ~1 km AGL, sat-tile basemap, 8-h endurance)
- **Statement**: DARPA Fast Lightweight Autonomy (FLA) program ran 2015–2018 (Phase 1 Florida 2017; Phase 2 Georgia 2018; complete). Focused on small quadcopter autonomy at ≤20 m/s through cluttered indoor/outdoor environments using onboard cameras + LIDAR + sonar + IMU, no GPS / datalink / pilot. A 2025 retrospective (arXiv 2504.08122) reviews FLA testing methodology and Phase 1 results. A 2025 USAF SBIR Phase II solicitation (Sweetspot ID `7946c818-409f-5b31-8f06-554466071d83`) is requesting visual position and navigation capability for sUAS in GPS-denied environments — confirming the regulatory + funding environment is currently active for this category in 2025.
- **Source**: Source #35
- **Phase**: Phase 2
- **Target Audience**: Decision-maker + Domain expert
- **Confidence**: ✅
- **Related Dimension**: SQ1 (defense-program lineage)
- **Fit Impact**: **context only, no direct candidate gain** — FLA pre-dates the project's specific regime by 8 years, focused on a different platform (multirotor) and altitude (low-altitude obstacle avoidance, not 1 km AGL nadir-camera satellite-anchor). Useful only to establish lineage and context. The USAF SBIR datapoint is more directly relevant: confirms that an active US-defense-funded need exists for sUAS visual position + navigation in GPS-denied environments — i.e., the project's market exists outside Ukraine.

---

## SQ1 — Conclusions (working summary, will be re-checked at Step 7.5)

### Existing-systems landscape (5 named-and-evidenced peer / adjacent systems)

| System | Class | Operational regime | Closest match dimension | Closest mismatch dimension | Status as evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| **Twist Robotics OSCAR** (UA) | Deployed Ukrainian peer | Combat-deployed, fixed-wing-class, GPS-denied vision-nav | **Same architecture, same threat environment** | Altitude / endurance / FC / accuracy contract not publicly specified | Closest peer for "feasibility floor" |
| **Auterion Artemis** | Production COTS one-way attack drone | Shahed-class, 1000-mile range, 40 kg warhead, Ukraine-validated GPS-denied nav | Same architectural pattern (Skynode + Visual Navigation + terminal guidance) | One-way attack vs reusable; no covariance/source-label contract published | Closest production reference architecture |
| **Vantor Raptor (Guide / Sync / Ace)** | Production COTS software suite | Vision-based GPS replacement on existing drone camera + Vivid Terrain 3D basemap | Visual-position software pattern | Vendor-managed sat-tile basemap is not the project's Azaion Suite Satellite Service; no AC-NEW-4 / AC-1.4 contract | Closest commercial peer for "build-vs-buy" framing |
| **snktshrma/ngps_flight (NGPS, ArduPilot GSoC 2024)** | Open-source research prototype | LightGlue+SuperPoint+UKF+`VISION_POSITION_ESTIMATE` to AP | **Same component split, same FC family** | GSoC prototype, not production; no spoof defence; no covariance honesty | **Closest open-source pipeline match — explicit architectural template** |
| **CTU Prague SPRIN-D winner** | Academic / competition | Multirotor, ≤25 m AGL, LiDAR + heightmap gradient + particle filter on CPU | "Recover-from-uncertainty > low-instantaneous-RMSE" lesson; VIO discipline | LiDAR-required, low-altitude regime, no sat-tile basemap | Architectural-pattern reference + cautionary tale |
| **Destinus Ruta + UAV Navigation** | Production miniaturised cruise missile | 300 km strike, DSMAC-class, Ukraine-combat-validated | Pre-cached basemap + visual matching + autopilot ingestion | One-way attack, terminal guidance, no covariance contract | Shows DSMAC-class miniaturised into UAV tier |

### Per-perspective coverage

| Perspective | Facts supporting | Saturation status |
|---|---|---|
| **Implementer / Engineer** | Fact #14 (NGPS), Fact #16 (SLAM failure modes), Fact #18 (DINOv2 risk) | Saturated for SQ1 — deeper component-level deep-dives go to SQ3/SQ4 |
| **Practitioner / Field (Ukraine)** | Fact #11 (OSCAR), Source #37 (~70% UAV losses to EW), Source #27 (Ruta + UAV Navigation Ukraine combat validation) | Saturated for SQ1 |
| **Domain expert / Academic** | Fact #18 (Hierarchical Matching SOTA), Fact #19 (AerialExtreMatch benchmark), Fact #15 (SPRIN-D regime distinction) | Saturated for SQ1 — academic SOTA benchmarking handed off to SQ3/SQ4 + SQ7 |
| **Contrarian / Devil's advocate** | Fact #15 (low-altitude RGB matching unreliable lesson), Fact #16 (RTAB-Map / ORB-SLAM3 disqualified), Fact #18 (DINOv2-on-Jetson risk) | Saturated for SQ1 |
| **Decision-maker / Business** | Fact #12 (production-ready Auterion), Fact #13 (commercial Vantor build-vs-buy framing), Fact #20 (USAF SBIR market context) | Saturated for SQ1 |

### Architectural conclusions for `solution_draft01`

1. **Build-vs-buy stance**: build. Vantor Raptor and Auterion Visual Navigation are commercially superior on hardening + integration but neither exposes the covariance honesty contract (AC-NEW-4) nor uses the project-specified Azaion Suite Satellite Service tile cache (AC-2.x); both are dual-use export risks for the Ukrainian battlefield. NGPS (Fact #14) is the open-source architectural template to learn from but is a GSoC research prototype lacking production hardening, spoof defence, and the covariance-honesty contract. Architectural conclusion: build with NGPS as the template, with project-specific contracts (AC-NEW-4, AC-1.4, AC-NEW-7) and per-FC adapter (SQ6 conclusion) layered on top.
2. **Differentiation from OSCAR (Twist Robotics)** must be made explicit in `solution_draft01`: (a) honest covariance contract per AC-NEW-4; (b) explicit `{satellite_anchored, visual_propagated, dead_reckoned}` source-label contract per AC-1.4; (c) AC-NEW-7 cache-poisoning safety budget on tile write-back; (d) ArduPilot Plane + iNav both supported per project's revised AC-4.3.
3. **Pipeline canonicalness**: the C1+C2+C3+C4+C5+C8 split is canonical (NGPS + the 2025 hierarchical-matching paper + SPRIN-D winner all use the same shape; only the specific algorithm choices differ). SQ2 will sanity-check this against one more pipeline-survey paper, but this is essentially a low-risk question now.
4. **Component-pruning** carried into SQ3/SQ4:
   - C1: **prune RTAB-Map and ORB-SLAM3** as primary candidates per Fact #16. Carry: VINS-Mono / VINS-Fusion / OpenVINS / OKVIS2 / DROID-SLAM / DPVO / pure VO baseline.
   - C2/C3: **mandatorily benchmark** any DINOv2-based candidate (AnyLoc, BoQ, SASCM-style) against AerialExtreMatch at our pitch / scale / overlap regime AND against Jetson Orin Nano latency budget (per Fact #18). Maintain LightGlue+SuperPoint as the "simple-baseline / known-Jetson-runnable" option per NGPS precedent.
   - C8 transport: NGPS uses `VISION_POSITION_ESTIMATE`. SQ6 picked `GPS_INPUT`. Re-examine the trade-off in design phase, but SQ6's selection stands for the research draft.
5. **Lessons from SPRIN-D winner that must propagate to `solution_draft01`**:
   - "Ability to recover from periods of high uncertainty and re-localize" > "low instantaneous RMSE" — directly informs AC-NEW-2 / AC-NEW-8.
   - VIO requires mechanically-decoupled IMU; this is a hardware-integration constraint, not a software issue.
   - Magnetometer is unreliable near steel/concrete; sensor fusion of heading sources is essential.
   - "No single sensor can be fully relied upon" — directly supports our IMU+camera+sat-tile multi-source posture.

### Open follow-ups (deferred to later sub-questions)

- **(SQ8)** Independent verification of OSCAR's "fully resistant to spoofing/jamming" claim — if available. Otherwise, Twist Robotics's claim remains a vendor-only signal.
- **(SQ8)** Vantor Raptor and Auterion Visual Navigation's covariance reporting behaviour — for benchmarking AC-NEW-4 compliance.
- **(SQ3+SQ4 / C2)** AnyLoc / BoQ / DINOv2-VLAD / MixVPR / EigenPlaces / NetVLAD on AerialExtreMatch for cross-source aerial — already in C2 search plan; SQ1 just confirmed they're the right candidate set.
- **(SQ3+SQ4 / C3)** LightGlue / LoFTR / RoMa / DKM / MASt3R + classical SIFT+RANSAC + XFeat on AerialExtreMatch — already in C3 search plan; SQ1 confirms shape.
- **(SQ7)** AerialExtreMatch + AerialVL + CS-UAV + RealUAV/SAVL + UAV-VisLoc as the dataset shortlist for our cross-validation — confirmed by SQ1 hits.

### Boundary check: SQ1 is saturated

Saturation signals observed: 4 perspectives saturated, ≥3 high-confidence facts per perspective, last 3 search rounds (Anduril Iris detail probe, ArduPilot prior-art probe, DSMAC lineage probe) yielded only one new substantive datapoint (NGPS) and confirmed already-known patterns. No unresolved contradictions. Per `references/source-tiering.md` "Search saturation rule" → SQ1 is closed.
