Evidence Atlas · Release 1.2.0
Explore the public record without flattening uncertainty.
Move from a country-level overview through doctrine, named systems, kill-chain functions, human control, deployment status, evidence, timeline, governance, and source records. The map is deliberately abstract: it contains no tactical deployment points, active-unit locations, or targeting coordinates.
Progressive disclosure
Ten linked layers preserve context from map to source.
The Atlas is an evidentiary graph rather than a capability leaderboard. Each layer answers a different question and makes it harder for a visually polished claim to appear more certain than its source permits.
- 01 Country State or alliance-level entry point connecting public posture, programs, systems, and sources.
- 02 Doctrine & policy Published strategy, policy, public limits, and declared operating principles.
- 03 System Platform, software, sensor, command architecture, program, or other named capability.
- 04 Kill-chain function The exact Find, Fix, Track, Target, Engage, or Assess function supported or automated.
- 05 Human control The publicly described distribution of authority, supervision, veto, abort, and safe-state behavior.
- 06 Deployment status Research, demonstrated, developmental, fielded, mixed, or publicly unspecified status.
- 07 Evidence & confidence Visible source class, claim state, confidence, disputes, and unresolved unknowns.
- 08 Timeline Exact or bounded dates for policy, announcement, demonstration, fielding, reporting, correction, or review.
- 09 Legal & governance Public review rules, international processes, declared principles, and limitations.
- 10 Source The traceable public record supporting the claim and its evidence classification.
World overview
Filter the evidence before interpreting the map.
Search by country, doctrine, system, function, human-control arrangement, evidence state, or lifecycle status. “Verified only” retains official, court/treaty, and independently corroborated primary states.
Country-level abstraction
Public evidence map
Accessible equivalent
Country and alliance records
| Entity | Primary evidence | Functions | Human control | Status | Key unknown |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| North America | Official | Find · Fix · Track · Target · Engage · Assess | Mixed or system-specific | Mixed lifecycle status across programs or configurations | Classified rules, exact model architectures, operational thresholds, and weapon-release modes for many systems are not public. |
| Middle East | Manufacturer | Find · Fix · Track · Target · Engage · Assess | Mixed or system-specific | Mixed lifecycle status across programs or configurations | Operational software, thresholds, deployment rules, review procedures, and many conflict-specific claims are not fully public or independently verifiable. |
| Europe | Manufacturer | Find · Fix · Track · Engage | Bounded post-activation autonomy | Fielded or operationally introduced | Exact software, classifier performance, abort behavior, and country-specific rules of engagement are not public. |
| East Asia | Corroborated | Find · Fix · Track · Target · Engage · Assess | Publicly unspecified | Developmental or research program | The maturity, combat validation, control modes, and fielded scale of particular AI-enabled kill-chain functions are often unknown. |
| Europe / Eurasia | Disputed | Find · Fix · Track · Engage | Publicly unspecified | Mixed lifecycle status across programs or configurations | Combat performance, error rates, software versions, operator oversight, and autonomy modes are contested or undisclosed. |
| Europe | Reported | Find · Fix · Track · Engage · Assess | Publicly unspecified | Mixed lifecycle status across programs or configurations | Rapid field modification, classified software, inconsistent naming, and limited independent access make exact control arrangements difficult to verify. |
| Europe | Manufacturer | Find · Track · Target · Engage | Human-in-the-loop | Demonstrated or tested | Configurations and operator doctrine vary by customer; manufacturer statements do not independently verify every deployed use. |
| Europe / North America | Manufacturer | Find · Track · Target · Engage | Human-in-the-loop | Demonstrated or tested | Future configurations, customer-specific integration, and fielding scale vary and must be checked individually. |
| Transatlantic alliance | Official | Find · Fix · Track · Target · Engage · Assess | Governance framework; no single operating mode | Policy, doctrine, or governance record | National systems, rules, and operational authority remain with allies and vary substantially. |
Evidence is part of the visual syntax
Thirteen states prevent false equivalence.
Solid, dashed, dotted, hollow, split, and hazard-patterned records communicate source quality even before the user opens a source. Color is supplementary rather than the only signal.
Officially documented
Published policy, doctrine, program material, or another authenticated official record.
Solid border, opaque node, and heavy connection line.Court- or treaty-recorded
A court record, treaty body, formal multilateral record, or comparable institutional document.
Double border and square marker.Independently corroborated
The claim is supported by multiple independent public sources or a transparent verification process.
Solid border with a diamond marker.Operator-described
A public description attributed to an operator or service user; useful but not automatically independently corroborated.
Solid border with a triangular marker.Manufacturer-described
A supplier describes a capability, control mode, or product status. This is not independent verification of field performance.
Dashed border, reduced opacity, and an explicit claim label.Credibly reported
Public reporting supports the claim, but the underlying primary record or complete operating context is unavailable.
Dash-dot border and circular marker.Demonstrated in testing
A controlled demonstration or test is documented; this does not establish routine operational fielding.
Split border and laboratory marker.Alleged
A claim exists but has not been adequately verified through reliable public evidence.
Dotted border and hollow node.Disputed
Reliable public sources materially conflict, or a claim is contested in a way the current evidence cannot resolve.
Hazard pattern and split marker.Operational status unspecified
Public material does not establish whether the capability is developmental, demonstrated, fielded, or routinely used.
Hollow node with an open lower edge.Control mode unspecified
Public descriptions do not establish who authorizes force, supervises the action, or can abort it.
Blurred orbital ring and dotted border.AI use not publicly established
Automation is documented, but no reliable public source establishes that the relevant operational function uses machine learning.
Wireframe node with an “AI?” marker.Outdated or superseded
The claim or record has been replaced, corrected, retired, or preserved only for historical context.
Struck-through label and faded node.System and program graph
Place each capability at the function it actually performs.
A platform can appear in several F2T2EA functions. That does not mean the software holds the same authority at every point, or that one public claim establishes the complete end-to-end chain.
Find
Detect a potential object, event, anomaly, or signal.
Fix
Establish identity, location, classification, and sufficient confidence.
Track
Maintain a time-dependent picture of movement, state, or behavior.
Target
Validate, prioritize, select a course of action, and apply governing constraints.
Engage
Apply an authorized effect or execute a bounded defensive action.
Assess
Evaluate effects, uncertainty, residual risk, and whether further action is justified.
Maven Smart System
Program / decision-support system
Official material describes sensor-data fusion, object detection, tracking, and decision support. The software is an upstream information and command layer rather than a weapon.
Replicator portfolio
Acquisition initiative
Official program material describes accelerated fielding of attritable autonomous systems. The portfolio contains different missions, platforms, and authority arrangements rather than one common autonomy mode.
Naval Strike Missile
Missile system
Manufacturer material describes imaging-infrared sensing and autonomous target recognition supporting terminal discrimination after a human-defined mission.
SPICE 250
Precision weapon system
Manufacturer material describes automatic target acquisition and recognition, autonomous functions, data-link updates, human-in-the-loop operation, and mission abort.
HARPY
Anti-radiation loitering munition
The manufacturer describes autonomous search for, identification of, and attack on emitting radar targets inside a defined mission profile.
HAROP
Electro-optical loitering munition
Manufacturer material describes detection, recognition, acquisition, and attack; related public material distinguishes it from HARPY through man-in-the-loop employment.
THeMIS Combat UGV
Uncrewed ground vehicle
The manufacturer states that autonomous functions are limited to mobility while the weapon system remains under human control.
Mission Master SP
Uncrewed ground vehicle family
The cited manufacturer demonstration combines autonomous navigation and networked cueing while stating that a human controls all kinetic decisions.
Lancet-family “intelligent targeting” claim
Loitering-munition capability claim
A manufacturer and belligerent source claims intelligent targeting and recognition, while independent analysis describes a broader autonomy-development effort. The public record does not resolve control mode or performance.
Saker Scout
Uncrewed aerial system
Public reporting describes AI-enabled detection and identification functions. The exact software, version, operator role, and engagement arrangement are not established by the current source set.
PLA intelligentization and kill-web research
Doctrine and research record
Independent research supports the strategic direction toward intelligentization, decision advantage, swarms, and kill-web concepts more strongly than it supports any uniform claim about fielded capability.
NATO responsible AI framework
Alliance policy record
Official alliance material identifies lawfulness, responsibility and accountability, explainability and traceability, reliability, governability, and bias mitigation as public principles.
Timeline and changed understanding
Announcements, demonstrations, policies, and fielding are different event types.
Move the year control to view the public record as it existed at that point. Bounded dates are preserved where a source does not support day-level precision.
The intrusion Cyber Kill Chain is formalized
The seven-stage intrusion model establishes the defensive premise that interrupting a necessary link can prevent an adversary from reaching its objective. The Atlas keeps this cyber meaning distinct from military F2T2EA.
Mission Master SP demonstration is published
The manufacturer describes autonomous navigation and cueing while retaining a human-in-the-loop requirement for kinetic decisions.
THeMIS mobility/weapon-control separation is described
Milrem states that autonomous functions are limited to mobility and that a human controls the weapon system in the demonstrated configuration.
DoD Directive 3000.09 is updated
The official policy addresses human judgment, realistic testing, safety, cybersecurity, interfaces, legal compliance, and review for autonomy in weapon systems.
Public reporting describes Saker Scout AI functions
The report supports an AI-enabled detection and identification claim but does not establish every control mode, software version, or operating configuration.
Replicator implementation is described publicly
The official program record supports accelerated fielding of attritable autonomous systems, not a single common engagement-authority claim.
NATO publishes its revised AI strategy summary
The official summary sets public responsible-use principles while leaving implementation and operational authority to allies.
NVIDIA publishes a distinct AI-system attack chain
Recon, Poison, Hijack, Persist, Impact, and Iterate/Pivot describe attacks against AI-powered applications. This model is included to prevent it from being confused with military F2T2EA.
Maven Smart System program description reviewed
Official material supports sensor fusion, object detection, tracking, and decision support while leaving many operational details nonpublic.
A Lancet-family “intelligent targeting” claim is published
The Atlas records the claim but applies the disputed and control-unknown states because performance, software, and engagement authority are not independently resolved.
KillChains.com Evidence Atlas v1.2.0 is published
The first public Atlas release adds country-level abstraction, evidence states, system records, a historical timeline, neutral comparison, saved views, and accessible table fallbacks.
Neutral comparison
Compare up to four entities without creating a “most lethal” ranking.
Use the Add to comparison controls on country and system records. The matrix asks what functions are documented, who appears to hold authority, what evidence supports the record, and what remains unknown.
No entities selected yet
Add a country or system above. The comparison is encoded in the current view URL so the same evidence state can be shared.
Three first-release explainers
Test the distinctions the Atlas depends on.
These compact interactions make the function–authority distinction, human-control spectrum, and chain-versus-web architecture visible without requiring the user to accept a definition on faith.
Explainer 01
AI-enabled does not necessarily mean autonomous force.
Toggle the functions attributed to software. Engagement authority is the decisive distinction.
This is AI-enabled decision support with human authority over the external effect.
Explainer 02
Human control is a spectrum, not a checkbox.
Human-in-the-loopExplicit human approval is required before the modeled external effect.
Explainer 03
A chain can become a distributed kill web.
In a linear chain, interrupting the fusion node breaks the only path to the effect.
Editorial boundary
The Atlas is a publication system, not a live operational picture.
All spatial positions are abstract. The release contains country-level or broad partnership records, not current tactical deployments, active units, exact strike locations, vulnerable infrastructure, or personal target data. System cards distinguish AI assistance, algorithmic automation, autonomous navigation, automatic target recognition, human-authorized engagement, operator-supervised engagement, bounded post-activation autonomy, and publicly unspecified authority.
Publication claims retain an evidence state, source trail, review date, and visible unknowns. Manufacturer material is never presented as independent proof of operational performance. A shared Atlas view preserves the filter state and comparison selection, but it does not transmit a user identity or behavioral profile.
Read the evidence methodology, open the narrative country summaries, review the system-category guide, or inspect the source library.