Is Zero-G Engine replacing my autonomy stack?
No. The runtime is positioned as a complementary layer between autonomy software and real-world action. The core posture is “fit existing stacks instead of replacing them.”
FAQ
Buyer Questions
Scope Boundaries
Answer the questions a serious buyer will actually ask.
The site should make it easier to understand what Zero-G Engine is, what it does not replace, what the current proof supports, and how an evaluation conversation begins.
Is this middleware, runtime, or governance layer?
The cleanest public category is deployment-time assurance runtime. It exists on the live path where systems act, rather than only as offline policy, dashboards, or orchestration glue.
Does this require retraining models?
Not as the default posture. The current positioning is about runtime control, escalation, provenance, and recovery around deployed systems that already exist.
What environments are in scope today?
The strongest current fit is with integrators, primes, platform teams, defense and space-adjacent programs, and high-consequence enterprise automation deployments.
What is still out of scope?
The public proof does not currently claim production-grade hardening across all attack surfaces, independent third-party validation, comprehensive space-environment resilience, or readiness for untrusted external deployment.
How do pilots or evaluations start?
The intended first step is a short briefing focused on insertion point, runtime-control problem, proof posture, and whether there is a real fit worth deeper review.
What proof can be shared externally?
The public proof page is the cleanest external-safe entry point. Additional evidence sharing should be handled case by case based on the conversation and the review context.