A robot performs physical actions through a programmed system. Our mobile base connects perception, control and actuation: a sensor supplies data, the micro:bit runs instructions and motors produce movement. A predefined route can work without adapting to changes. Using new information to modify an action adds an environmental response. Autonomy must be described within specific conditions; it does not mean the robot has intentions, understands every situation or can operate without human preparation.

Explain a social application by specifying task, user and context. Carrying a card through a model investigates one aspect of delivery; it does not demonstrate the ability to move among people in a hospital. Human supervision prepares the space, initiates operation, reviews results and handles faults. To choose a useful mission, ask which need the available equipment can meet and how to test it. A clear purpose may need fewer components than a spectacular demonstration. A functional diagram identifies the robot‘s contribution and the decisions people still make.

A mobile base with two driven wheels changes its trajectory according to how each wheel moves relative to the other. If both push forward similarly, the robot tends to travel straight. If one moves more slowly, the path curves toward that side; opposite directions can produce a tighter turn. Left and right are identified from the robot’s front. A top view connects wheel arrows with predicted movement, even when we are facing the base from the front.

That prediction describes a relationship between movements, but does not by itself determine how many centimeters the robot will travel or the angle it will reach. A motor-controller setting is not a distance and does not guarantee a physical speed. Duration indicates how long a command is maintained; it does not equal a fixed distance either. Surface, load, battery, wheels and assembly affect the result. Even similar commands can produce small differences between the two wheels.

We therefore use prepared low settings, supervision and short segments to compare predictions with the actual route. Recording the setting, duration and observed displacement distinguishes a command from its effect. If the turn differs from the prediction, the front reference and each motor‘s commands help us investigate; the angle needs a physical check. This relationship between drawing, program and observation supports evidence-based route correction instead of treating a tested duration as a measurement valid on every surface.

A distance sensor estimates proximity within its model’s operating conditions. An ultrasonic system emits a signal and uses its return to estimate distance. Object shape and orientation matter: a broad box may be detected differently from a narrow or tilted piece. Compare readings with known positions and check the documented unit. Interpret the value before applying the motor rule. Receiving a value does not guarantee that it is valid or describes every obstacle.

The page proposes an initial teaching boundary of 15 cm for stopping at low speed. Retain it as a trial hypothesis, not a certified safety distance. Equality must belong to the stopping rule. Missing or invalid readings also need handling; their representation depends on sensor and extension. Do not invent a universal code or confuse absence with a clear path. Test using model obstacles in a marked area following the teacher’s procedure. Review the chosen distance against observed speed and response.

A mission connects an initial state, a route and an end. The en_mision variable expresses whether the program allows movement; a segment counter can indicate which part of the route is due. They do not represent the same thing: knowing the segment is not enough to authorize movement. Motors remain stopped at power-on. Button A prepares a new mission, including the counter’s initial value, while B requests stopping. This preparation lets a second mission begin without accidentally continuing where the previous one ended.

During control, mission state, distance validity and obstacles are checked before a segment is commanded. Stopping takes priority: a later forward command must not undo it within the same control pass. To keep information current, readings are updated between short segments. A long wait delays new checks in that sequence. We therefore need to observe when B is handled as well as recognize its block; an instantaneous response cannot be assumed.

The end is part of the mission too: both motors stop and en_mision no longer enables movement. For an obstacle, we must define what follows stopping. The introductory route proposes remaining stopped until a new supervised start. Removing the box checks whether behavior matches this requirement, without treating its disappearance as an automatic command. Choosing another way to resume would require a different written requirement and new checks.

The robot’s exact reference determines components, power and MakeCode extension. Maqueen Lite, Plus and different Plus versions must not be treated as identical equipment. An image or video of another version may explain a function without supplying valid connections. The teacher prepares the matching project and specification. Before powering on, check micro:bit insertion, sensor, batteries and mechanical parts while the robot is stationary. The first motor test may use a prepared stable support with wheels free.

An observed fault can have several explanations. If a wheel does not turn, a command may be missing, a connection incorrect or a mechanical problem present. First inspect what the code specifies, then compare the unpowered assembly with the model sheet. Do not swap cables randomly or increase power to compensate for an unknown cause. Changing one thing at a time connects repair with outcome. Simulation does not prove both wheels turn; identified physical observation is required. Record which check distinguished the causes and keep the project that produced the result.

A robot story raises questions about perception, autonomy and sustainability. It is not a manual for our equipment. Separate observation of a scene, interpretation of its meaning and technical claims requiring verification. Seeing a character carry objects does not establish which sensors or algorithms a real robot uses. To investigate an ability, consult component documentation and explain which part our model could reproduce. Also acknowledge abilities that the available assembly cannot test.

The integrated WALL·E block retains 0.25 sessions for preparation, 2.25 for authorized viewing or a coherent selection and one session for checking and transfer. The written or described alternative addresses the same questions and requires no viewing outside class. Beforehand record an ability and a question; during the activity record three observations without copying dialogue. Then relate two plausible sensors and two actuators to specific functions. Turn the conclusion into a testable A01 requirement and check its implementation in A02. This creates no third graded submission.

Calibration in this workshop means relating a tested setting to observed behavior under specified conditions. It does not declare the robot exact. For route comparisons, fix starting position, orientation, load and surface; also record control settings. Repeat three trials and keep all of them, including deviations. The best isolated attempt does not describe consistency. Mark the intended destination and observe arrival, turns and whether the robot remains stopped. These observations identify what to investigate before changing the entire program.

If it overshoots, investigate segment duration or setting while keeping other factors fixed. Changing surface, battery and code together prevents attribution of improvement. A stop command ends the movement command, but observed stopping also depends on mechanics and surface; do not promise instantaneous braking. Trials must include clear track and an obstacle under approved conditions. Removing the box checks the written restart policy. Results adjust the prototype and communicate its scope; they do not certify a real transport system.

Demonstrate the project by comparing mission and tests. Video or photographs can support explanation, but editable code and records show which command produced each effect. A01 includes user, route, components, algorithm, predictions and an already executed microtest. A02 includes the programmed robot, three trials, correction, improvement and instructions. Promising later construction cannot replace an initial physical interaction when required. If a part could not run, mark it pending and delimit what the available evidence demonstrates.

Acceptance tests include power-on without A, a clear-path mission, a box, B during operation and three route repetitions. The page proposes a box at 10 cm as a stopping case within the teaching boundary; use it only through the supervised procedure. Also review invalid reading, finish and new start. Each partner explains a component, predicts a result and reproduces a modification. Usefulness includes limits and a reuse plan: preserve kit and model, reduce disposable materials and adapt the same base to another need.