Six rows out of eighteen. Proven.
A device raises the alarm, a machine maps it, a person confirms it, a robot treats it, and the device checks the result. Five handoffs, one workflow, one proof.
- Who asks
- Insect traps in block C, when catch counts stay over the line for two days. The grower's agronomy agent runs it from there.
- Who does it
- A drone maps the leaf damage. A scout confirms the pest on the ground. A spray robot treats, under a licensed applicator.
- Evidence only
- The same traps, seven days later. Their counts decide whether the treatment worked, at no extra cost.
- Who pays
- The grower. $90 for the drone flight, $45 for the scout visit, spraying by the acre, and the chemical billed separately. Example figures.
- You get
- One record from alarm to result: where it was sprayed, with what, how much, and whether it worked.
Proof of work is useful. Proof of restraint is rarer: sprayed here, and only here.
Buyers and certifiers increasingly ask where, and how much, was sprayed. This answers with a GPS track, not a spreadsheet filled in afterwards.
Know your pests and live near vineyards? Join the contributor waitlist
Hollow Creek Vineyard is fictional. Prices are illustrative.
Where it was sprayed, and where it wasn't.
The drone's map shows where the damage is. The scout confirms why. The robot's track shows it went there and nowhere else. A week later the traps show whether it was enough.
From trap to result, in six steps.
Each step is a task, posted by the outcome of the one before. Nothing gets sprayed until a person has confirmed what's there.
- 01
Detect
Catch counts in block C stay over the line for two days. A standing order fires, one workflow per block.
- 02
Map
A multispectral drone flight maps leaf damage. Finding: six hotspot rows out of eighteen.
- 03
Scout
A scout walks three hotspots, photographs the pest on the leaf and counts per plant. An agronomist confirms the species.
- 04
Treat
The spray robot treats those six rows and nothing else. The licensed applicator supervises. Product, rate and GPS track are logged.
- 05
Day 7
The traps report again a week later. Below the line means it worked. The check costs nothing: the traps were there anyway.
- 06
Record
One proof from alarm to result, sent to the buyer or certifier who needs to know where, and how much, was sprayed.
Six rules, one question, and a week.
The one question for a model: is this the pest? Even that one gets an agronomist's review. A versioned policy, not the model, makes the decision.
| Check | How | By | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| The alarm is real | Catch counts over the line two days running, from the traps' own signed reports. | Rule | Passed |
| The block is mapped | The drone's flight log covers all eighteen rows at the required resolution. | Rule | Passed |
| The pest is confirmed | The scout's photos of the pest on the leaf: is this the species the traps caught? An agronomist reviews the answer. | Model | Passed |
| Only the hotspot rows | Every point of the robot's GPS track lies inside rows 8 to 13. One point outside fails the check. | Rule | Passed |
| Rate within the label | The logged product and rate, row by row, inside the range on the label. | Rule | Passed |
| A licensed applicator | The supervisor's applicator licence, checked with the issuer, not self-declared. | Rule | Passed |
| It worked | Trap counts below the line seven days later. | Rule | Passed |
Traps still over the line on day 7? The workflow stays open and the agent gets a finding, not a quiet pass. The grower decides what happens next.
§ 05 · Scope, drift and the label
A record of what was sprayed. Not a licence to spray it.
Teleport proves where the robot went, what it logged and what the traps said afterwards. Whether that product, at that rate, was allowed there, is the grower's call under the label and local law. The scope says so, and drift onto the neighbour's land is recorded either way.
- Verified
- Where the robot sprayed; product and rate logged
- Not verified
- Label compliance, buffer zones, re-entry intervals
- Responsible
- The grower, under the label and local law
- Licence
- Applicator, checked with the issuer
- Drift
- Recorded as a finding, with wind and drift cards
- Shared with
- The buyer or certifier, by outcome event
Its hash goes into the proof, and the proof page shows it word for word.
What needs care.
Pesticides are heavily regulated, and a proof about them will be read closely. It has to be exact about what it covers.
The label is the law
The proof records what was applied. The label, buffer zones and re-entry intervals are the grower's legal responsibility, and the verification scope says so in plain words.
Drift gets written down
Spray that lands on a neighbour's land is a finding, recorded with the wind and the drift cards. It isn't smoothed into a pass.
Licensed hands only
The applicator's licence is checked with the issuer, and the drone pilot's certification too. Spraying can't be routed to anyone without them.
Nobody walks into wet rows
Once a row is treated, no scout or other task is matched into it until its re-entry interval has passed.
A person confirms the bug
A model looks at the photos, but a scout on the ground and an agronomist confirm the species. Treating the wrong pest is worse than waiting a day.
More spray isn't more credit
A track outside the hotspot rows fails the condition. The proof rewards spraying less, not covering more.
Where, what, how much, and did it work.
The receipt is what a buyer or certifier asks for: a treatment record they don't have to take on trust, and the result that justified it.
Dollars pay the drone operator and the scout, on accept. The chemical is billed as goods. Nobody needs $PORT to post a task or get paid for one.
- Task
- Pest response · block C
- Requested by
- Trap sensors, via the agronomy agent
- Performed by
- Drone · scout · spray robot
- Hotspot
- Rows 8–13 · 6 of 18
- Track
- Inside the hotspot rows only
- Day 7
- Traps below the line
- Scope
- Application record · not legal compliance
- Decision
- Accepted
- Paid
- Drone $90 · scout $45
STATUS: FINAL
The track itself: hashed into the proof. The full GPS file goes to the grower and, if they choose, the certifier.
For builders.
A WATCH standing order on the traps, then an escalation that branches on FINDING:CONFIRMED. The spec below is the treatment task, whose key condition is a track that must stay ONLY_WITHIN the hotspot.
PhysicalTaskSpec · the treatmentTAP v0.3 draft · preview, subject to change
{
"schema": "teleport.tap.physical-task",
"version": "0.3.0-draft",
"title": "Spot-treat hotspot rows 8–13, block C",
"category": "TREAT",
"requester": {
"requesterType": "AI_AGENT",
"principal": { "principalType": "ORGANIZATION" },
"mandateId": "mdt_hollowcreek_ipm_v2"
},
"trigger": {
"type": "TASK_OUTCOME",
"sourceRef": "task_hc_blockc_scout_0412",
"finding": "CONFIRMED"
},
"fulfillment": {
"mode": "DIRECT",
"designatedPerformers": [{ "fleetId": "hollowcreek_spray_robots", "actorType": "ROBOT" }]
},
"relations": { "workflowId": "wf_hc_blockc_pest_1101" },
"actorRequirement": {
"permittedActorTypes": ["ROBOT"],
"requiredCapabilities": [
{ "capability": "LICENSE.PESTICIDE_APPLICATOR",
"attributes": { "role": "SUPERVISOR", "verifiedBy": "ISSUER" } }
]
},
"environment": {
"siteRef": "site:hollow_creek_block_c",
"referenceAssets": ["map:blockc_damage_1101", "label:product_x_v4"]
},
"completionConditions": [
{ "type": "LOCATION", "id": "track_in_hotspot", "subjectRef": "actor:spray_track",
"zoneRef": "site:hollow_creek_block_c:rows_8_13", "relation": "ONLY_WITHIN",
"verificationMethod": "DETERMINISTIC" },
{ "type": "MEASUREMENT", "id": "rate_on_label", "metric": "application_rate",
"unit": "L/ha", "min": 1.0, "max": 1.5, "verificationMethod": "DETERMINISTIC" }
],
"findings": ["DRIFT", "SKIPPED_ROW"],
"economics": {
"settlementAssets": ["FIAT"],
"goods": [{ "ref": "product_x", "billedSeparately": true }]
},
"popw": { "required": true, "assurancePolicyId": "VERIFIED", "proofTiming": "WORKFLOW" },
"metadata": { "verificationScope": "APPLICATION_RECORD_ONLY" }
}Proposed additions this use case surfaced
- Proof of restraint
- A location condition over a whole track, not one point: everything must stay inside the zone. That lets “treat only here” fail, and makes a proof of where the work didn't happen.
- Findings that branch
- An escalation that waits for a person's FINDING:CONFIRMED before the next task is posted, so a drone map alone can't send a sprayer out.
- Issuer-verified licences
- Capabilities backed by the issuing body's check (pesticide applicator, drone pilot), with jurisdiction and expiry, that matching can enforce.
- Device efficacy checks
- A follow-up task with no performer at all, settled by the traps' own counts a week later. It costs nothing and still goes in the proof.
- Outcome events for certifiers
- A signed event to a buyer or certification body with where, what and how much was sprayed, and the scope it was proven under.
Example economics: drone $90, scout $45, spraying by the acre, chemical as goods, and the day-7 check at $0 because the traps do it. Developer docs
Growers and agronomists
Asked to prove where you sprayed?
Tell us about your blocks, your traps and your buyers. We're looking for design partners in precision agriculture.