# Comparison Framework

## Selected Framework Type
Knowledge Organization + Problem Diagnosis — mapping completeness dimensions against solution state

## Completeness Dimensions

1. Core Pipeline Definition
2. Sensor Fusion (ESKF) Specification
3. Visual Odometry Configuration
4. Satellite Image Matching Pipeline
5. Coordinate System & Transformations
6. Flight Controller Integration (GPS_INPUT)
7. Disconnected Route Segment Handling
8. Startup, Bootstrap & Failsafe
9. Object Localization
10. Offline Preparation Pipeline
11. Ground Station Integration
12. Operational Procedures
13. API & Inter-system Communication
14. Document Consistency
15. Testing Coverage vs AC

## Maturity Scoring

| Score | Level | Description |
|-------|-------|-------------|
| 1 | Concept | Mentioned but not specified |
| 2 | Defined | Architecture-level description, component selected |
| 3 | Detailed | Implementation details, data flows, algorithms specified |
| 4 | Validated | Benchmarked, tested, edge cases handled |
| 5 | Production | Field-tested, operational procedures, monitoring |

## Completeness Assessment Matrix

| Dimension | Current State | Maturity | Key Gaps | Facts |
|-----------|--------------|----------|----------|-------|
| Core Pipeline | VO → ESKF → GPS_INPUT flow well-defined. Dual CUDA stream architecture. Camera rate corrected to 0.7fps. Time budgets calculated. | 3 | Self-contained — but references "unchanged from draft03" in several places instead of restating | — |
| ESKF Specification | "16-state vector", "ESKF + buffers ~10MB", "ESKF measurement update" | 1.5 | No state vector definition, no process model (F,Q), no measurement models (H for VO, H for satellite), no noise parameters, no scale observability analysis, no tuning strategy | #3, #4 |
| VO Configuration | cuVSLAM selected, 0.7fps feasibility analyzed, pyramid-LK range calculated, overlap >95% | 2.5 | No camera calibration procedure, no IMU calibration parameters (noise density, random walk), no T_imu_rig extrinsic, no cuVSLAM mode selection (Mono vs Inertial), no cuVSLAM initialization procedure | #5, #6 |
| Satellite Matching | LiteSAM/EfficientLoFTR/XFeat decision tree, TRT conversion workflow, async Stream B | 2.5 | No GSD normalization spec, no tile-to-camera scale matching, no matching confidence threshold, no geometric verification details beyond "RANSAC homography", no match-to-WGS84 conversion | #9, #14 |
| Coordinate System | WGS84 output mentioned. Camera footprint calculated. | 1 | No transformation chain defined (pixel→camera→body→NED→WGS84). No camera-to-body extrinsic. No reference point definition for NED. No handling of terrain elevation. | #8 |
| Flight Controller Integration | pymavlink, GPS_INPUT, 5-10Hz, UART | 2 | No GPS_INPUT field population spec (where do velocity, accuracy, hdop come from?). No fix_type mapping. No GPS time conversion. No ignore_flags. Confidence scoring undefined in current draft. | #1, #2, #14 |
| Disconnected Segments | Mentioned in AC, satellite matching acknowledged as solution | 1.5 | No algorithm for detecting tracking loss. No re-localization trigger. No position initialization after re-localization. No map discontinuity handling. | #7 |
| Startup & Failsafe | 12-step startup sequence. Engine load times. | 2 | No GPS-denied handoff protocol. No mid-flight reboot recovery. No "3 consecutive failed frames" handling. No operator re-localization workflow. | #15, #16, #19 |
| Object Localization | "Trigonometric calculation" mentioned | 1 | No math defined. No API endpoint. No Viewpro gimbal integration spec. No accuracy analysis. | #12 |
| Offline Preparation | Tile download → validate → pre-resize → store. TRT engine build. | 2 | No zoom level selection. No storage calculation. No coverage verification. No tile freshness check. No pre-flight validation tool. | #18 |
| Ground Station Integration | NAMED_VALUE_FLOAT at 1Hz for confidence/drift. Operator re-localization hint mentioned in AC. | 1.5 | Re-localization request/response undefined. Ground station display requirements undefined. Operator workflow undefined. | #19 |
| Operational Procedures | None defined | 0 | No pre-flight checklist. No in-flight monitoring guide. No post-flight analysis. No failure response procedures. | #11 |
| API & IPC | FastAPI mentioned for "local IPC" | 1.5 | Endpoints only in security_analysis.md, not in solution. No request/response schemas. No SSE event format. No object localization API. | #20 |
| Document Consistency | 3 documents (draft05, tech_stack, security) | — | tech_stack.md has 3fps (should be 0.7fps). LiteSAM resolution mismatch. EfficientLoFTR missing from tech_stack. | #13 |
| Testing vs AC | Tests cover TRT, cuVSLAM 0.7fps, shutter. | 2.5 | No explicit mapping of tests to AC items. Missing tests: disconnected segments, re-localization, 3-consecutive-failure, object localization, operator workflow, mid-flight reboot. | — |

## Overall Maturity Assessment

| Category | Avg Score | Assessment |
|----------|-----------|------------|
| Hardware/Platform | 3.5 | Well-researched: UAV specs, camera analysis, memory budget, thermal |
| Core Algorithms (VO, matching) | 2.5 | Component selection solid, but implementation specs missing |
| Sensor Fusion (ESKF) | 1.5 | Severely under-specified |
| System Integration | 1.5 | GPS_INPUT, coordinate transforms, API all incomplete |
| Operational Readiness | 0.5 | No operational procedures, no deployment pipeline |
| **Overall** | **~2.0** | **Architecture-level design, not implementation-ready** |
