❓ FAQ — Design Recovery Control (DRC)
This document addresses frequent misunderstandings and boundary violations
related to Design Recovery Control (DRC).
If a question is not answered here,
it usually indicates a misunderstanding of the DRC concept itself.
No.
DRC does not perform control.
- 🚫 It does not generate control inputs
- 🚫 It does not replace controllers
- 🚫 It does not execute in real time
DRC supervises control design assumptions only.
Q2. Does the LLM control the system in DRC?
Absolutely not.
In DRC:
- ⏱ PID controls the system
- 🔄 FSM enforces safety and state logic
- 🧠 LLM operates offline and asynchronously
Any system where an LLM directly influences actuator commands
is not DRC.
Q3. Is DRC similar to adaptive control?
No.
Adaptive control:
- modifies control behavior online
- adapts continuously to observed dynamics
DRC:
- ❌ does not adapt online
- ❌ does not self-learn
- ❌ does not autonomously modify controllers
DRC updates design artifacts, not execution logic.
Q4. Is DRC a type of reinforcement learning?
No.
| Aspect |
DRC |
RL |
| Learns policies |
❌ |
✅ |
| Optimizes rewards |
❌ |
✅ |
| Outputs actions |
❌ |
✅ |
The two approaches are conceptually incompatible.
Q5. Can DRC fix hardware failures?
No.
DRC does not address:
- actuator failure
- sensor failure
- structural damage
- electrical faults
These are handled by maintenance, redundancy, or fault isolation.
Q6. When is DRC activated?
DRC is activated when:
- 📉 control performance degrades
- 📐 design assumptions no longer hold
- ⚙ the system remains operational
- 🛡 safety margins are still intact
DRC is not an emergency response mechanism.
Q7. Can DRC run continuously in the background?
No.
DRC is:
- 🔔 event-driven or periodically invoked
- ⏱ discrete and non-continuous
- 🧭 explicitly triggered
Continuous or high-frequency invocation
violates DRC principles.
Q8. Does DRC require human approval?
Often, yes.
DRC supports:
- 👤 human-in-the-loop review
- 🧾 audit trails
- 🔐 approval gating
🚫 Fully autonomous self-deployment is not permitted.
Q9. Can DRC change the structure of the controller or FSM?
No — unless explicitly approved outside the DRC process.
By default:
- controller structure is fixed
- FSM topology is fixed
- only parameters and assumptions may change
Structural redesign is out of scope for DRC.
Q10. Is DRC suitable for safety-critical systems?
Yes — by design.
DRC was created to:
- 🛡 preserve deterministic control
- 🔍 maintain inspectability
- 📜 support certification workflows
It avoids the risks of real-time AI control.
Q11. Can DRC be combined with RL or AI control?
Not at the same control layer.
- RL or AI control may exist elsewhere
- DRC must not supervise AI controllers
- 🔒 layer boundaries must remain strict
Mixing control authority invalidates DRC.
Q12. Why use an LLM at all in DRC?
Because:
- design assumptions are expressed in language
- long-term degradation is context-rich
- human-like design reasoning is required
- outputs must be inspectable and explainable
The LLM replaces design review effort,
not control execution.
Q13. Is DRC domain-specific?
No.
DRC is domain-independent and applies to:
- mechanical systems
- thermal systems
- semiconductor processes
- MEMS
- robotics
Domain-specific implementations belong in separate repositories.
Q14. Can DRC modify safety limits?
No.
- safety limits are enforced by FSM and hardware interlocks
- DRC may propose revised assumptions
- DRC must never override safety constraints
Q15. What invalidates a claim of DRC?
Any system that:
- allows LLMs to control actuators
- performs online self-learning control
- bypasses FSM safety logic
- blurs design and execution layers
must not be described as Design Recovery Control.
🔒 Design Intent Freeze
This FAQ fixes the interpretation boundaries
of Design Recovery Control.
Future clarifications may be added,
but must not weaken or expand the authority defined here.
End of document.