# Validation Log

## Validation Scenario
A fixed-wing reconnaissance UAV flies at 75 km/h cruising speed at 1,000m altitude. The operator needs to identify a vehicle type at 3 km slant range, then zoom in to read markings at 1.5 km slant range. Wind is 8 m/s with gusts. The UAV performs orbital surveillance (constant turns).

## Expected Based on Conclusions

### If using ViewPro Z40K:
- At 3 km: 20x optical zoom narrows FOV to 3.45°. 4K resolution provides 8.29MP of detail. Vehicle type identification is straightforward.
- At 1.5 km with 25x iA zoom (4K): Sufficient resolution to distinguish markings. Image remains crisp.
- During turns: 3-axis gimbal compensates yaw. Operator sees smooth, stable image. OIS absorbs airframe vibration.
- In gusts: 5-axis OIS + gimbal maintains stable frame. No visible wobble at zoom.
- Transmission: 4K may need to be downscaled to FHD for transmission bandwidth. Recording is 4K on SD card.

### If using USG-231 (on Shark M):
- At 3 km: 30x optical zoom narrows FOV to ~2.1°. But FHD resolution means only ~2MP of detail. Vehicle type identification is possible but with less margin.
- At 1.5 km at 30x: Target fills more of the frame due to higher zoom, but fewer pixels per target compared to Z40K at 20x.
- During turns: 2-axis gimbal does NOT compensate yaw. During orbital surveillance (constant heading change), the image will exhibit horizontal wobble/drift. EIS will attempt correction but consumes resolution and may introduce warping.
- In gusts: EIS handles moderate vibration but produces artifacts under aggressive movement. The operator may see frame edges jumping or brief warping.
- Transmission: FHD native — no downscaling needed. Encrypted Full HD over 180 km via Silvus.

## Actual Validation (Against Known Evidence)
Defense Express combat footage from Shark UAV (USG-231) over Donetsk confirms: "quality of the camera allows to receive detailed images online and determine the coordinates of targets." Auto-tracking from 800m demonstrated effectively. This suggests that for the Shark's primary mission profile (target coordinate determination at moderate ranges), the USG-231 is sufficient. However, no public footage shows high-zoom image quality during aggressive maneuvering, leaving the wobble question unresolved by direct evidence.

No comparable field footage exists for the Z40K on a reconnaissance fixed-wing platform.

## Counterexamples
1. The USG-231's 30x optical reach means it can observe targets at greater standoff distance without digital zoom degradation. If the mission requires maximum standoff (e.g., flying high above enemy AD), the extra optical reach matters more than resolution.
2. The Z40K's 4K recording may be overkill if the transmission link only supports FHD — the operator sees FHD anyway in real time, and 4K is only useful in post-mission review.
3. In electronic warfare environments, the USG-231 (integrated with Shark ecosystem) has proven EW resilience. The Z40K as a standalone payload has no such validation.

## Review Checklist
- [x] Draft conclusions consistent with fact cards
- [x] No important dimensions missed
- [x] No over-extrapolation
- [x] Conclusions are actionable
- [ ] Note: USG-231 sensor identification (Sony FCB) is inferred, not confirmed — affects low-light conclusion confidence

## Conclusions Requiring Caveat
- Low-light performance comparison depends on confirming the USG-231's actual sensor module
- Field reliability comparison is one-sided (USG-231 is combat-proven, Z40K is not)
- Real-world wobble comparison lacks direct video evidence from both cameras on the same platform
